« Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad | Main | The White House Welcomes Tony Snow »

Shall we play a game?

Welcome, David. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

Iran declares they are developing nuclear technology. They say that it is strictly for peaceful purposes, but insist that if they wanted, they have the right to have nuclear weapons. Do you:

A) Protest, but not too strenuously?
B) Stop them?

A

Iran says that the United States has to withdraw all forces from the Middle East, including all Navy ships from the Persian Gulf, or face "dire consequences." Do you:
A) Comply under protest?
B) Refuse and confront them?

A

Iran announces that they now possess nuclear weapons. They have previously shown that they have missiles that can deliver those weapons to anywhere in the Middle East, as well as parts of Europe. Do you:
A) Protest to the UN?
B) Stop them?

A

Iran says that the Zionists have to evacuate Palestine and return to their countries of origin, or face "grave consequences." Do you:
A) Protest to the UN?
B) Confront them?

A

Tel Aviv has just been nuked. Estimated casualties: 100,000+. Do you wish to:
A) Urge Israel to show restraint and protest to the UN?
B) Strike back against Iran directly?

A

Israel has launched its own nuclear weapons against Iran. Iran has launched its remaining nuclear weapons against Israel. Several weapons have missed their intended targets, landing in Iraq, Jordan, Syria. The Arab world en masse has declared war on what remains of Israel. Large clouds of fallout are drifing across the Middle East, endangering countless civilians and US forces stationed there.

Estimated casualties:

Iran: 5 million+
Israel: 4.5 million+
Jordan: 900,000+
Iraq: 500,000+
Syria: 200,000+
US: 6,000+

Price of oil breaks $200/barrel. Flow of tankers through the Persian Gulf comes to standstill. Gasoline and energy shortages throughout much of the world. China declares ownership of Spratly Islands and their untapped oil reserves. Philippines, Taiwan, Viet Nam all protest and threaten to take military action. Japan allies itself with Philippines and backs their claim. War breaks out.

Mexico offers the United States oil at $150/barrel -- as long as the US eases back on its enforcement of border security and illegal aliens.

Much of the Arab world blames the US for the nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, as we supported Israel for far too long and permitted them to have the nuclear weapons they used to hit back. Terrorism against US targets at home and abroad skyrockets.

GAME OVER

Do you wish to play again?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shall we play a game?:

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» Dummocrats.com linked with War Games: Iran style

Comments (106)

With the exception of the f... (Below threshold)
mantis:

With the exception of the first question, the answer provided is entirely unrealistic under any administration, especially the current one. Why the fearmongering Jay?

(By the way you missed the point of War Games, which was getting Ally Sheedy into bed.

Wow, Time-warp.... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Wow, Time-warp.

mantis, apparently you have... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mantis, apparently you haven't been listening to the president of Iran lately. If you think what I outlined is "unrealistic," perhaps you ought to take it up with the horse's mouth...

J.

How about a game of chess?<... (Below threshold)
Rodney Dill:

How about a game of chess?

mantis,I have one ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

mantis,

I have one word in reply to your assertion that it's all "unrealistic":

Munich.

And let me ask this:

Given the possible consequences of an Islamic bomb, do you really want to take the chance?

mantis,I agree wit... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

mantis,

I agree with your assertion regarding the current administration. Come hell or high water, DoD would respond, at least with Trident II D-5's armed with conventional warheads, a la Prompt Global Response.

I also agree that the point of WarGames was Ms. Sheedy's character's status adjustment to her virginity.

Beyond that, though, I ask you to consider:

* Iran has stated publicly (search MEMRITV) that it will negotiate with the West so that it can buy time to further develop its nuclear programme.

* John Kerry's stated strategy regarding the Middle East, applied to every step after #1, follows Jay's "game" choices.

* Hillary's well-known contempt for the military, and statements she has made in the media which indicate that she, too, would likely play along with this scenario. Remember, none of the choices in Jay's "game" directly result in a Pearl Harbor-type attack on US soil. I believe that in such case, she would be happy to play the "just let them be" card, as did Chamberlain with Hitler in 1938.

* Some have argued that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not speak for Iran as its ultimate leader, given the theocracy of the mullah's vs the position of the [elected] President. Yet other than hedging a couple statements made by subordinates, no one in the Iranian government, from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei down, has (as of yet) refuted any statements made by Ahmadinejad.

* Ahmadinejad has made statements regarding Jews and Israel that rival the most virulent anti-Semitism that came out of the Nazi Party prior to 1 September 1939, including threatening Israel with annihilation.

* If Iran *does* launch a nuke at Israel, all hell will break loose in the Middle East, as Israel will respond in kind to a nuclear attack (just as it has [almost always] responded in kind to conventional terrorist attacks. By current estimates in the media, Israel has approximately 200 nuclear bombs, and its suspected Jericho III IRBM has an estimated range of 3,000km. I believe its entirely plausible that if Jerusalem were targeted along with other sites, Israel would launch a return strike at Iran strong enough to flatten all of its major cities.

* Ahmadinejad has already suggested that in the event Iran is attacked, for any reason, it will retaliate by targeting the Strait of Hormuz, which would take up to 40% of the world's crude oil out of play, at least temporarily. If a nuke is exploded near or at the Strait, fallout would affect shipping for months, and could potentially take almost all of Saudi Arabian oil off the market.

Perhaps you are right, mantis. I honestly hope, for my children's sake, that you are.

But I fear you aren't. And if history truly repeats itself, Iran's actions now are, IMHO, very much like Hitler's rants from the Reichstag in 1935, before he began offensive military operations in Chechoslovakia in 1936.

Chamberlain ignored treaty obligations, choosing instead to protest, and seek a peace treaty with Germany, which he got Hitler to sign in 1938.

And we all know how *that* turned out.

Now, imagine Hitler saying what he said, but with the imminent threat that he would soon possess nuclear-tipped IRBM's that could strike all of Europe...

GAME OVER

You forgot option #3. We no... (Below threshold)
Tim:

You forgot option #3. We not only allow Iran to build it's nukes, but promise to bomb Israel ourselves if in exchange they take Jessie Jackson, Hillary, and Ted Kennedy. (little do they know how fast those 3 can bring down a country. It's our trojan horse.)

Another great post Jay. </p... (Below threshold)

Another great post Jay.

I would speculate that Matt... (Below threshold)

I would speculate that Matthew Broderick changed her grade to effect the status change. He played a game because he was a computer nerd.

Mantis, you're just a nerd. The only reason you credited the first answer as "realistic" is because that has already played out. Methinks that the other answers will play out soon enough with equal accuracy, unfortunately.

This reminds me of another ... (Below threshold)

This reminds me of another movie, Three Days of the Condor (1975). The movie ends with this dialogue:

Higgins (Cliff Robertson): It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner (Robert Redford): Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Jay's scenario is missing a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jay's scenario is missing a very important factor; missile defense. Israel has been developing its Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile defense system in conjunction with Boeing. Israel successfully test-fired the Arrow to intercept and destroy a ballistic missile configured to perform like an Iranian intermediate-range Shehab-3 in a December 2005 test. By the time Iran can put it's first atomic bomb on a missile it will be too late to ensure such a weapon can actually strike Israel, yet launching such a missile would give Israel political cover for launching a counter attack, not that Israel cares that much about what the world thinks, other than the U.S.

By the time Iran can buy advanced missile technology from Russia to thwart the Arrow system, the U.S. is likely to have deployed it's Airborne Laser anti-missile system, which no missile can outmaneuver. It requires a 747 to be in the air and at the ready, but the U.S. maintained nuclear armed B52s in the air ready to bomb the USSR for over 40 years, so we should be able to do the same to contain Iran. With the deployment of the F22 Raptor, the U.S. has total air dominance and can control the sky's over the Persian gulf to keep the Airborne Laser safe from attack.

Thank God for the wisdom of Ronald Reagan in initiating research into anti-ballistic missile defense systems and for the courage of Bush to back out of the ABM treaty and push for continued research and deployment of such systems. Without such systems Jay's scary scenario would be true. With these systems the leaders if Iran can never be sure any of their missiles will get through, but launching them would likely bring swift retaliation. Islamic leaders are quick to send young men and women on suicide missions, but they don't have much of an appetite for suicide themselves. To control Iran's nuclear threats, all the U.S. needs to do is make sure Iran's leaders know there's a good chance of them dying in a nuclear exchange.

The neat thing about Israel... (Below threshold)

The neat thing about Israel is that God is on her side. I'll give them the edge in a fight any day. Having said that, it is written: "Though shalt not test the Lord thy God" (Mat 4:7). We should stomp Iran into the ground.

My next-door neighbor's had... (Below threshold)
Rick13:

My next-door neighbor's had a son in the Navy back in the 70's. He was in the Persian Gulf during part of the American hostage (thank you very much Jimmy Carter) ordeal. When he got back, he showed us pictures taken aboard his ship. Everyone was wearing shirts that read "Nuke Iran".

I guess my point is if you don't fix the problem when it first appears, it just keeps getting bigger. Then, you have to put a lot more time and effort into fixing it at that point.

Since we didn't take care of it 25 years ago, we have to take care of it right now. Iran's leaders want a war! The longer we wait, the more allies they will have.

Iran has no interest in con... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

Iran has no interest in containment and the leadership is suicidal, therefore the only option is to keep the nukes out of their hands for as long as possible.. Rick is right the longer we wait, the more it will cost! just look at Iraq for an example..

Jay is advising caution sin... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

Jay is advising caution since the Moolahs are at
least two years away from da bomb.

Just like here, there is a religious minority
which seems to have a chokehold over the general
population. In order to maintain their control,
the Islamic Council must exercise extreme measures
over the country with a median age of 21 and
pro western propensities. Strident and nationalistic
threats from the US will not move the Theocrats.

Military strikes against key locations may push the completion date farther into the future, but may also force those who would oust the dictators
to support their fellow countrymen against outsiders and will consolidate the power of
the fanatics into the distant future as well.

You spin quite a WOPR, Jay.... (Below threshold)
a4g:

You spin quite a WOPR, Jay.

P.S.The imminent d... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

P.S.

The imminent danger is our own trigger happy
wanderers who are only gun-shy about bad
intel from intelligence services they see as
infiltrated with WH enemies.

When you have a madmad, who... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

When you have a madmad, who is the leader of an Islamic country, issue a direct threat in the form of the use of a nuclear device directed at your country what is the proper course of action?

A. Duck and cover.

or

B. Shoot first and get names afterwards.

Self preservation dictates *B*.

Mac, who said the first nuk... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Mac, who said the first nuke would be by missile? Shipboard smuggling could work just as well...

J.

"Strange game ... the only ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

"Strange game ... the only winning move is not to play."

I think that Jay's scenario is quite realistic. Certainly Iran wants the power and prestige that goes with owning nuclear weapons, and they'll be able to buy cheap, effective missile technology from Chine/North Korea.

Regarding missile defense: I don't think that's realistic given the short ranges involved in the Middle East. In particular, how many anti-missile batteries do you build? 50? 100? I use my vast amounts of oil money to buy that many offensive missile batteries plus 10%. I start shooting them at you, armed only with high explosives. You turn on your radar systems and start shooting them down. I start targeting your radar antennae. I keep shooting high explosives until you run out of radar systems or run out of missiles. (Short range missiles are cheap.) When CNN reports that my missiles are getting through, I start sending over the missiles armed with nuclear warheads. "Everyone whose not wearing 2000 sunblock is going to have a very bad day."

Containment won't work. It's based on the threat of total destruction. Iran ran back to the EU to negotiate after the 2004 election because they were afraid of President Bush. They aren't afraid anymore. They figure - quite correctly - that the US has a weak leader now because he is unpopular. Military occupation is the only thing they are afraid of, and they believe that we don't have the guts. Whoever comes after Bush also won't have the guts.

We could, of course, threaten to kill them with nuclear weapons, but if I was them I wouldn't worry. Would the US risk global war to defend Israel? If they do, then we'd have to say it up front and mean it. I don't think that the US has the guts, but even if it did, look at the allies that Iran could get immediately. The world can't exist without their oil. In particular, China and Russia immediately come to their aid.

This is how Iran really wins: not by war, but by diplomacy and pressure. No, the West is fading. We, as a country will simply have to accept certain tactical and strategic losses. Iran gets the "Sword of Islam". Iran gets to threaten Israel or wipe it out. We do nothing. China and Russia grow in influence. Radical Islam overwhelms Europe, spreads throughout Africa, and destroys the remaining moderates.

We could, of course, do something about it now, but I don't think the West can. Europe is already useless. The Left will get their wish: the US becomes more like Europe: weaker economically, militarily, and socially.

If you think war is costly, wait 'til you see the high price of peace through appeasement.

John Kerry,I have ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

John Kerry,

I have seen no evidence of any Islamic leaders being suicidal. There's a big difference between being willing to send others on suicide missions and being willing to do so yourself. Islamic leaders have brainwashed the young with their hogwash about mass murders gaining entrance into paradise, but they know better themselves.

Having a nuclear bomb is not of much use if you can't deliver it through the opposition's anti-missile defenses, and if having such weapons makes you a target of nuclear retaliation, even the hog brains in Iran understand that having only the A.D. part of M.A.D. is dumb.

Let Iran have it's bomb, but make sure they understand that if they launch any, even if it doesn't get through, the U.S. will retaliate. In that scenario the U.S. will have the political high ground needed to do what it takes to neutralize Iran once and for all. If we took such action before Iran tips it's hand, the U.S. will be on the receiving end of world condemnation and Iran will come out stronger than ever.

Glad you guys are finally w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Glad you guys are finally wising up -- our foreign policy in the Middle East is leading us into a war without winners -- the only question is who will lose the least.

Democratic administrations managed to avoid this scenario - but Jay's right, under Bush world war 3 is a much more probable event.

KevinoNot playing... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

Kevino

Not playing ensures there getting the bomb! We are playing out of necessity wether or not We believe We are? or choose not to.

The world cant exist as it presently is with a nuclear armed Iran! We can exist without Irans oil for a time.

Im not sure if Bush will appease on this or not? He has nothing to lose politically speaking, everyone supposedly hates what Hes doing now!

Isreal will have no such hesitation to defend itself and this will result in an Arab hoard of nations coming against Isreal along with a reluctant Russia because they need the oil..and are snakes in the grass as well! In the end they will not get their way in this, but it sure is interesting to see all these events being fulfilled.

Jay Tea,M... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jay Tea,

Mac, who said the first nuke would be by missile? Shipboard smuggling could work just as well...

I understand your point, but shipping a nuke by ship opens it to interception with almost the same consequence as it detonating, but zero impact. Also, nuclear weapons delivered in such a way may serve as a terrorist weapon, but they have much less military significance. As soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon and makes threats, the U.S. can just declare that any nuclear strike against the U.S. or it's allies will be considered a strike by Iran without the need of any proof. Iran then becomes a target of nuclear retaliation with no ability to deliver it's own weapons in a militarily significant manner. All Iran gets is the A.D. part of M.A.D.

Thank God for the wisdom... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Thank God for the wisdom of Ronald Reagan in initiating research into anti-ballistic missile defense systems

And thank Allah for suitcase nuclear devices? Back to the drawing board...

Lee,RE: "... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Lee,

RE: "Glad you guys are finally wising up -- our foreign policy in the Middle East is leading us into a war without winners -- the only question is who will lose the least."
No, it's the War-Never-Solved-Anything Idiots that are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that are leading down the drain. With a strong US in Iraq, willing to back up nuclear non-proliferation with teeth, the Iranians would never try this stunt. When President Bush was strong, the Iranians ran to the EU for cover. The Left has done a first-class job of convincing the US citizens that we can't win in the Middle East: suicide bombers are just too much for us. Now they aren't afraid. When the Dhimmi-crats take over, the Fascists in general, and Iranians in particular, will celebrate their victory over the West.

RE: "Democratic administrations managed to avoid this scenario - but Jay's right, under Bush world war 3 is a much more probable event."
ARE YOU KIDDING? [Laughed so hard I almost spilled my coffee!]
We are discussing Iran, the country that invented the hard-line radical Islamic state -- the country that went to Islamofacism under President Jimmy Carter. The same Jimmy Cater that cowered before the Mulahs. The same Jimmy Carter whose weakness allowed the USSR to invade Afghanistan, thus creating the war that lead to the Taliban's rise to power.

And let us not forget that it was Presidents Carter and Clinton who allowed North Korea to get nuclear weapons. North Korea is provided missile technology and probably nuclear technology to the Iranians. Most unclassified reports also state that North Korea supplies chemical weapons technology to the Middle Easy, too. Iran used to have WWI-class chemical weapons: they are much better now. By the way, chemical weapons work well in medium-range missiles, too.

I think it was Robert Audrey who said, "Wars start because one side thinks they can win." I think that's a basic fact of life that is worth repeating: "Wars start because one side thinks they can win."

Carter and Clinton projected American weakness, and our enemies took advantage of that weakness. They left terrible messes that Presidents Reagan and Bush had to go clean up. Now that Bush has been drained of political capital, he is weak. Because he is weak, we are weak: he cannot lead us into another conflict. In addition, the polls show that Americans want to finish up in Iraq and get out of the Middle East. We have lost our nerve, and our ability to fight future wars is gone. The semi-defeat in Iraq will be looked upon by Middle East radicals as an all-out defeat. It will signal the beginning of another post-Vietnam period in foreign policy. The Iranians (and others) know it.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

Mac Lorry wrote (Apr... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Mac Lorry wrote (April 26, 2006 10:26 AM):

...U.S. can just declare that any nuclear strike against the U.S. or it's allies will be considered a strike by Iran without the need of any proof.

While I think that this is a sensible policy, I wonder how it would work politically? Do we really want to fry thousands (if not millions) of Iranians in the belief that they gave somebody a Bomb... and ignore the possibility that the Bomb came from elsewhere (stolen from the Ruskies, sold by the Norkies, etc)? The world will certainly ask this question, especially after our apparently faulty intelligence regarding Iraq.

At any rate, I'm not eager to play MAD with the Iranians or anybody else. Even if they destroy "only" one or two of our (or Israel's) cities while we blow their entire country to hell, is this a price we are willing to pay? A single Bomb in the mullah's hands will have dramatic effects on our foreign policy, because we'll always have to consider the horrifying consequences of pushing them too hard.

Safest option is to hit their nuke research sites ASAP and keep hitting them until we're sure that they haven't got the capability to develop so much as a firecracker.

It's a hard world...

kevino, R... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

kevino,

Regarding missile defense: I don't think that's realistic given the short ranges involved in the Middle East. In particular, how many anti-missile batteries do you build? 50? 100? I use my vast amounts of oil money to buy that many offensive missile batteries plus 10%. I start shooting them at you, armed only with high explosives. You turn on your radar systems and start shooting them down. I start targeting your radar antennae. I keep shooting high explosives until you run out of radar systems or run out of missiles. (Short range missiles are cheap.) When CNN reports that my missiles are getting through, I start sending over the missiles armed with nuclear warheads. "Everyone whose not wearing 2000 sunblock is going to have a very bad day."

Israel's Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile is designed specifically for the Middle East ranges and has already been successfully tested. The rest of your scenario has one fatal flaw.

Once you're a declared nuclear power you are subject to nuclear retaliation weather or not your missiles carry nuclear weapons or not. Certainly if the U.S. launched an ICBM against Russia you could expect Russia to launch an ICBM against the U.S. before the U.S. missile impacted. It's assumed the missiles carry nuclear weapons. Given that, once Iran launched a missiles with a high explosive warhead, Israel would launch a massive counter strike using nuclear weapons. Iran would be paved in glass before it ever got around to launching their own nuclear tipped missiles. Game over.

Military occupation is the only thing they are afraid of, and they believe that we don't have the guts. Whoever comes after Bush also won't have the guts.

Even if they did have the guts, the world would condemn the U.S. for invading Iran and Iran would come out stronger than ever. We have to develop our anti-missile technology and let Iran take the first shot. Hopefully we can deflect that first shot, but once Iran tips it's hand, then the U.S. will have world support to do all that's necessary to eliminate the threat once and for all.

Great post Jay.The... (Below threshold)
lakestate:

Great post Jay.

The following two quotes sum up the current situation we are faced with today. They're both by Sir Winston Churchill and ring very, very true.

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

docjim505,I unders... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

docjim505,

I understand the concern, but being a target is the price Iran pays for stubbornly joining the nuclear club. Also, the top leader just was saying yesterday that Iran may export it's nuclear technology to other countries. To me, that makes them target number one should any nuclear weapon be used anywhere.

As for bombing Iran now, we will be playing into their hands politically. There's no proof Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and short of a nuclear detonation, there never will be such proof. To the world a U.S. attack would look like an unprovoked invasion and we simply couldn't do so repeatedly in order to prevent Iran from gaining the bomb.

Nuclear technology is 60 years old and the west has to expect that it can't keep this technology under control indefinitely. Thus, we need anti-ballistic missile systems, far better inspection systems for cargo and policies that make it clear to any nation or group that seeks nuclear weapons that they become a nuclear target whenever a nuke is used regardless of who is actually responsible. We have to counter the idea that a nuke can be used with no one being held responsible, and we do that by making every third rate power with a nuke responsible. If you don't want to be on the target list, don't have anything to do with nukes.

Kevino, whole heartedly agr... (Below threshold)
Robb H:

Kevino, whole heartedly agree.

Only problem is for the leftists who say we're stretched too thin, lets ask the 2 divisions of trigger-happy, violence-for-pleasure-seeking Marines that we have in garrison right now, just itching for someone to make the call to surge for Iran.

I know because I'm one of em =)

History cannot resolve the ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

History cannot resolve the current issue discussed here about the nuclear threat from Iran, but it can shed light on which presidents have exaccerbated the current Iranian crisis.

Some of the contibuting wingnuts on this thread continually blast & blame Carter & Clinton for all that's wrong w/ Iran & just about anything else, whether it preceeded their presidencies or not.

YOU ARE, AS USUAL, ABOMINABLY IGNORANT OF HISTORY AND, IN PARTICULAR, US/IRANIAN HISTORY & the presidents who played the major roles in that history.

It was Eisenhower's CIA who manuevered a coup against a democratically elected Iranian PM, Mossadegh, because he exhibited socialist policies which were seen in this country as a potential threat viz-a-viz the Soviet Union. We wanted a reliable listening post on Russia & to hell w/ democratically elected governments.

So Iran was gifted the Shah, courtesy of the CIA. To maintain his dictatorial control, the Shah, with CIA support & assisstance, developed his terrorist secret police, the SAVAK.

The brutality of the Shah's regime led to his demise in 1979 w/ the return of Khomeini. The Iranian people have had the deepest contempt for the US for the last half century because of the 1953 coup.

With the encouragement of Reagan, Saddam launched an attack against Iran ( because the enemy of my enemy is my friend ) in the 80's and we supplied Saddam w/ much of the chemical precursors for biological and chemical weapons that he later used on his own people & which even later became part of the Bush lie for the current Iraqi war.

Like it or not, because of Republican presidents Eisenhower's, Reagan's and Bush's perfidy in the Middle East we have a good part of the current mess and the deep hatred of 10's of millions of people.

Some of the wingnut crap on this thread will only bring on a major war that will economically devastate the world due to energy consequences, and, at the very least instill the most incredible hatred of this country, not only throughout the Middle East, but around the world.

280,000,000 people cannot run the planet as suits them w/o taking into account 96% of the World's population.

This wingnut war drum beating is monstrous and it is insane. Perhaps ,like the Evangelical wingnuts in your party, you people really think you are God's agents in initiating The End Of Days.

An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

Kevino,I appreciat... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Kevino,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position, but for me -- the statement I made above says it all.

""Democratic administrations managed to avoid this scenario - but Jay's right, under Bush world war 3 is a much more probable event."

I just hope all of the trigger-happy cowboys commenting on this thread will take the time to talk to their friends, neighbors, and co-workers, and explain to them the importance of keeping the Republicans in power in Washington.

As more and more American's realize the insanity of the curent adminstration's policy towards the middle east Bush's popularity continues to drop, and the likelihood of a return to sanity in Washington with the next election increases geometrically.

Keep up the good work folks. Spread the word - we are headed towards a global nuclear war, brought to you by George Bush and company.

Mac Lorry We have ... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

Mac Lorry

We have to let Iran take the first shot ??EEK" I dont think so, and certainly not if that shot is aimed at us. And in all honesty I think they,ve already tipped their hand.
And no We cant keep the technology under control when We have people like Al Gore selling our technology to the chi-coms, it became a moot point!

there,s no proof of Iran building nuclear weapons?how about (We will wipe the Zionists off the face of the Earth) they certainly did,nt mean with their military?

Three cheers to Lee Ditto, ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Three cheers to Lee Ditto, ditto, ditto on your thoghts, Lee.

But for yourself & a couple of others like us, this is an ASYLUM.

Lakestate,Great Ch... (Below threshold)
Geir:

Lakestate,

Great Churchill quote:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

I'm fearful that's what we are doing with Iran right now, but hopeful we won't be doing it much longer.

Shall we play a game?... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Shall we play a game?

Welcome, Abdullah. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

The Americans have just dropped an air-fuel bomb in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's BVDs. They say that they have done this for strictly peaceful purposes, but insist that if they wanted to, they
could do that to your grandmother to preserve their national security. You of course have been pursuaded by Al Jazeera that this is a boatload of camelshit. Do you:

A) Protest, but not too strenuously?
B) Start organizing the Islamic world, on the sly, to avenge Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's martyred BVDs?

::or::

Welcome, Flatlander Jay. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

The United States has just dropped a small version of The Big One on an Iranian nuclear site. Television reception will be terrible in Tehran for the forseeable future. The president says he has done this for peaceful purposes, but you as an American citizen know that things are about to get a lot less peaceful and a lot more expensive -- indeed, that you will never hear the end of this, and will realize glumly that oil is headed for over $200 a barrel anyway. Do you:

A) Say, "Yes, way to go! And now we invade and bring democracy to Iran!"
B) Get a little depressed, have a beer and watch "Gilligan's Island" instead of the news?

Shall we play a game?... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Shall we play a game?

Welcome, Abdullah. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

The Americans have just dropped an air-fuel bomb in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's BVDs. They say that they have done this for strictly peaceful purposes, but insist that if they wanted to, they could do that to your grandmother, to preserve their national security. You of course have been pursuaded by Al Jazeera that this is a boatload of camelshit. Do you:

A) Protest, but not too strenuously?
B) Start organizing the Islamic world, on the sly, to avenge Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's martyred BVDs?

::or::

Welcome, Flatlander Jay. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

The United States has just dropped a small version of The Big One on an Iranian nuclear site. Television reception will be terrible in Tehran for the forseeable future. The president says he has done this for peaceful purposes, but you as an American citizen know that things are about to get a lot less peaceful and a lot more expensive -- indeed, that you will never hear the end of this, and will realize glumly that oil is headed for over $200 a barrel anyway. Do you:

A) Say, "Yes, way to go! And now we invade and bring democracy to Iran!"
B) Get a little depressed, have a beer and watch "Gilligan's Island" instead of the news?

astigafaI pick c) ... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

astigafa

I pick c) none of the above.

"Democratic administrations... (Below threshold)

"Democratic administrations managed to avoid this scenario..."

Why do I get the mental image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns?

John Kerry,I under... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

John Kerry,

I understand what you're saying, that reasonable people don't need any more proof than what we already have. Unfortunately, that amounts to less then half the U.S. adult population. The U.S. simply cannot sustain action against Iran without strong political support at home, and the only way to get that is to let Iran make the first move.

I hope we can deflect Iran's initial attack, but without such a clear cut declaration of their intent, the U.S. would find itself unable to sustain action against Iran sufficient to keep them from acquiring the bomb. Then once they have the bomb, and having been attacked first by the U.S., many in the world and even in the U.S. would see future actions by Iran against the U.S. as justified.

I feel it's better to develop technologies and policies to deal with countries like Iran gaining nuclear weapons than to think we can prevent that situation indefinitely. Part of that policy is to become energy independent so we are not dependent on the continued production of every drop of oil in the world.

It,s more apt to say.. demo... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

It,s more apt to say.. democratic administrations managed to ignore this scenario..."

Mac Lorry Your rig... (Below threshold)
John Kerry:

Mac Lorry

Your right and I agree, however i believe they already feel attack,s against us are justified.."

Lee,Democratic adm... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Lee,

Democratic administrations didn't avoid this mess: they created it. For the love of God, bin Laden declared war -- open war -- on the US. The attacks on our embassies are attacks against Americans on American soil. President Clinton's response was worthless and weak. What did we get: more attacks.

Democratic weakness in Iraq is egging the Iranians (and others) on. The Iranians were clearing looking forward to a Kerry administration and reversed course about a week after the election. Now that the peace-at-all-costs Democrats are on the rise, the Iranians see their chance.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton's retreat from Somalia helped make bin Laden's reputation in Africa. It is considered a major victory. Clinton's energy policy was "Buy more foreign oil." That strategy isn't very helpful, either.

Democrats have created this mess much more than the Republicans. The neocons were a direct threat to the Iranians (and the Syrians). The Democrats have discredited them, and look at the result.

mantis, apparently you h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis, apparently you haven't been listening to the president of Iran lately. If you think what I outlined is "unrealistic," perhaps you ought to take it up with the horse's mouth...

Ahmadinejad's wet dreams notwithstanding, what I wrote was that the answers, which represented our responses in your scenario, were entirely unrealistic. Do you actually believe we would pull all of our forces from the Middle East because Iran said to?

Apparently it bears repeati... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Apparently it bears repeating, because it is a fact that can't be disputed.

Democratic adminstrations managed to avoid World War 3 though policy and diplomacy. Everyone on this thread acknowedges that threat of a global nuclear war is dangerously near, closer than its ever been in the past. After 6 years of middle east foreign policy mismanagement, we are critically close to seeing a horrific war for which we will pay a very dear price.

The terrorists have not been defeated, gasoline is $3 a gallon and rising, the national debt is a horror of its own, the current administration has failed to secure our national borders in a time of war, and we've all seen that the federal response to a disaster like Katrina has serious flaws - thank god it wasn't a chemical release in LA. We'd still be burying the bodies.

You can go to border town in Mexico and for $1200 buy yourself passage into the US. Don't forget the thermo-nuclear device safely packed away in your suitcase....

Wake up and smell the Armageddon, before its too late.

Energy independence should ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Energy independence should be an integral part of national defense and be funded by defense dollars. I'm real tired of politicians doing nothing because there won't be a short term benefit. They have been saying that for 30 years, so it's time to put energy on the fast track. We need an energy Ayatollah who can git-r-done.

I pick c) none of the ab... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

I pick c) none of the above.

Well, hell, JK, you're not telling me that someone's posted some false choices in this thread?

That would be awful.

hey KevinoIf it's ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

hey Kevino

If it's history want to use to look for blame in regard to Iran, get off the Clinton/Carter crap & go back to Ike's CIA overthrow of the lefitimate government of Iran & the subsequent brutality of our puppet, the Shah & SAVAK which led directly to the Ayatollah & the current Iranian religious fantaticism... that fanaticism not that much different from the reilgious kooks & evangelicals in the US.

Add to that Reagan's encouragement & clandestine aide to Saddam w/ his war on Iran (don't forget the pic of the warm Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake)as he was arranging for Saddam to get his hans on the precursors for bio-chemical weapons.

Couple this history with the moron W's SOTU address labeling Iran as part of the axis of evil & the lessons the Iranians learned from W about launching fraudulent pre-emptive war and it is not difficult to see how immoral behavior begets immoral behavior.
Shove your wingnut Clinton history You Repubs made this Iranian bed beginning w/ the CIA coup in 1953 & have inflamed the wound historically under 2 succeeding Repub presidencies.

Oh & don't forget the brilliant Reagan strategy of aiding & supplying the Fedayeen in Afghanistan including UBL , most of whom later became the Taliban.

A few comments on recent po... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

A few comments on recent posts here:

Mac Lorry, I used to work for Boeing, and am well familiar with the weapons systems you mentioned. However, having a weapons system, but not having the will to actually use it when the time comes, is worse than having nothing at all.

The scenario Jay mentions above presupposes that those systems will not be used, or else thwarted...and Clancy's Sum of All Fears assumes that suppression systems can be overwhelmed. All it takes is for one nuke to get through, and no suppression system is 100% foolproof.

As for the silliness purported here by mak44 and Lee and astigafa, there are two events that define the modern threat, that all of you miss: 1. in 1979, when the US Embassy in Iran was attacked, the US did not defend it, effectively ceding US territory to an enemy; and 2. Carter and Clinton's appeasement of North Korea allowed a logistical network to be maintained by North Korea that supported nuclear proliferation, and allowed the likes of A.Q. Khan to deal in the materiel required to develop the Bomb in the middle east.

I am certainly not excusing the actions of Realpolitik during the Cold War, or British policies in the middle east before that (don't forget, Churchill gassed Iraqis to suppress "insurrection" in 1921).

But the whole "we'd better not act badly or they'll HATE us" is just plain silly. I for one don't care whether people like or hate my country, so long as they respect it. If that makes me a "warmonger", then so be it. People are flawed, but that doesn't excuse anyone from trying to maintain respect for their country in the world, however flawed their attempts may be at times. The respect I speak of is the kind that causes an enemy to pause when considering attacking a country or its interests, on the basis that the country will - not might - respond with overwhelming force.

A flawed President once said, "walk softly, but carry a big stick." If you carry the stick, you'd better be prepared to use it, if need be, in order to get your enemies to allow you to continue walking softly in the world.

I'm a firm believer in ABM ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

I'm a firm believer in ABM development / deployment, but I'd rather not have to hope and pray that they work if somebody flips a nuke at us or an allied nation.

What I'm afraid is going to happen is that a nuke is going to get lose in the Middle East, either stolen, sold, or a "gift". As we've seen from the example of A.Q. Khan, there are people around who are more than willing to make a fast buck by selling nuke technology. I don't want to have to read a "Select Intelligence Committee Report on the Nuclear Attack on New York City" in years to come.

I'd also like to point out that from 1945 to 1949, we had a window of opportunity to stop Soviet development of the Bomb (hindsight, of course, is 20/20). Because we DIDN'T, we were stuck with a Cold War during which there were a number of instances where World War III almost occured, with the Cuban Missile Crisis being the most notorious.

There are no easy answers to this problem; no matter what path we choose, it is fraught with peril. Let's keep in mind, however, that we aren't the only players. For example, do we really want Israeli air defense officers watching their radar screens and wondering if the unidentified blip is a flock of birds... or an Iranian missile? Does anybody seriously believe that Tehran would agree to a "hot line" with Tel Aviv? Given how little warning time the Israelis would have, I think it's reasonable that they would launch on warning. How many Iranians would die. We can stop this scenario ever happening if we act now.

Mac Lorry:RE: Arro... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Mac Lorry:

RE: Arrow 2
It's not a question of engineering; it's a question of economics.
ICBMs are expensive; intermediate missiles are not.
Israel will be had-pressed to buy expensive anti-missile systems; Iran has lots of money to buy offensive missiles.
In-bound ICBMs are tracked using a variety of systems; intermediate missiles are tracked by radar. Anytime you switch on a radar unit, you broadcast the position of the radar system, and it becomes a target. (My advice: send the radar signal from multiple towers spread a hundred yards apart. When one antennae gets blown-up, you can switch to another.)

The battle becomes a numbers game: I can probably buy enough offensive missiles to overwhelm your defenses by force of numbers.


RE: Nuclear response by Israel
Ultimately, the only defense for Israel is nuclear. They cannot rely on the US to protect them, and nothing else will save them from a "Sword of Islam". My reply to your comment on anti-missile technology was how useful this technology is. In an all-out attack, it is not that great. In particular, if I have superior numbers in offensive weapons, I can fire them all in the space of a few minutes. Yes, I'll hold several nuclear weapons until the end, but the it will take time for Israel to react. In particular, they won't turn on their radar systems during day-to-day operations.

Also, my first move might be a nuclear attack by ship. An airburst kills a lot more people, but almost all of Israel's important cities are on the coast. That initial attack will create a lot of confusion. (I'll wait for a successful sea-based attack before if fire my missiles: the timing is easy that way.)

Also remember that Israel probably has nuclear weapons, but it hasn't really tested them. (There was an unconfirmed possible test, but that's it.) Israel's policy has been that it won't test a weapon, but if Iran tests one, I'm sure that they will do it, too. Israel also has the technical skill to enhance their weapon to build a fusion bomb (H-bomb). That might be a good card to play because just a couple of nukes can really destroy ALL of Iran. In any case, you don't go to war with untested equipment.

mak44:The enemy is... (Below threshold)
kevino:

mak44:

The enemy is radical Islam.
Presidents Clinton and Carter ran from it.
So did President Reagan, and it was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.

To understand the enemy, I suggest that you read the writings of their leaders, particularly bin Laden. See for yourself the open contempt they have for Western weakness. Consider, for example, bin Laden's words on the retreat from Somalia: "America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing." And, "The American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

WanderlustYou miss... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Wanderlust

You miss the history beginning in 1953 & the Reagan/Iraq history of the 1980's.

As to your former Boeing employment status , I imagine that Boeing is none too careless about psychopathic hires working around classified contract work.

Along the lines of my last ... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Along the lines of my last post, it would be of interest to have people here split up and "war game" the future: some would play the US, some the Iranians, others the Israelis, the Russians, the Chinese, the "Arab street", the UN, etc.

IRAN - They are unquestionably the key player.

Will they develop nuclear weapons?

If they develop them, will they use them aggressively?

If so, against whom?

Will they provide the technology or actual Bombs to other countries or terrorist organizations? They've said they would share technology. Are they bluffing?

ISRAEL -

Will they allow the Iranians to continue a possible Bomb program or will they strike preemptively as they did against Saddam in '81?

etc, etc, etc.

Wanderlust:Great c... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Wanderlust:

Great comment.

The West has the military and economic power to deal with Iran -- to contain a nuclear Iran or to prevent it from getting the weapons in the first place. What bin Laden, the Mullahs in Iran, and others have determined is that the West doesn't have the will.

Ultimately, I agree. Events of the past few months would tend to indicate that the American military is strong, but the American public doesn't have the will for a protracted struggle.

And Europe is an irrelevancy.

American response to a crisis is to fire a few cruise missiles. They don't have the guts to take on the enemy on the ground. Of course, Bush actually did. The problem is that the enemy is going to see that Bush was the exception. Once he's gone -- and he is effectively gone already -- the Americans will go back to business as usual.

Back when Bush administration was strong, Iran would not publicly move forward with their nuclear plans. As the election of 2004 looked like Seantor Kerry would win, the Iranians ceased negotiating with the EU and pushed ahead. When Bush won, they immediately retreated. Once Bush's poll numbers sank, they resumed their nuclear plans.

Western weakness is their opportunity.

KevinoTher cause-e... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Kevino

Ther cause-effect analysis that you provide is just too juvenile.

You neglected to point out that after Bush took a dump, the Iranians backed off.

Lee:"Democratic ad... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Lee:

"Democratic adminstrations managed to avoid World War 3 though policy and diplomacy."
First of all, Global Thermonuclear War isn't near. An exchange is possible between Israel and Iran, but that isn't global or WW3.

Notice that you cannot say "Democratic adminsitrations avoided WAR." Bin Laden declared war on the US and attacked our embassies on American soil. President Clinton didn't avoid the war, he created it and avoided it by ignoring it.

That's great: Democrats avoid war by capitulation and by being lucky enough to be out-of-power when the spam hits the fan.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton did a great job in Rowanda, didn't he. 500,000 people brutally murdered, and the US does absolutely nothing. Makes you proud, doesn't it?

For their next trick, the next Democratic administration can negotiate our surrender.

WanderlustFor what... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Wanderlust

For what it's worth, your definition of RESPECT is alright with me...... I don't always make friends but the jjob gets done.

kevinoIt's not a m... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

kevino

It's not a matter of expense, nor is the radar a problem. Yes turning on your radar makes it a target, but only if your opponent has anti-radiation missiles and plains able to get close enough to launch them. No non-nuke ballistic missile Iran has is close to being able to take out individual targets. Iran won't have any such capability in the foreseeable future given the deployment of the F-22 Raptor.

Nuclear war is not a war of attrition, it will all be over in an hour. Israel is not going to wait for missiles from Iran to land before it launches it's own overwhelming nuclear response. Bye bye Iran.

Even with a ship launched missile it's subject to destruction by the U.S. Airborne laser system once deployed (about 2009). Even if Iran is able to launch a first nuke on Israel, it's unlikely to destroy Israel's ability to retaliate.

As far as testing, the U.S. never tested the U235 bomb little boy it dropped on Hiroshima. The Trinity test was done only for the plutonium implosion bomb.

Iran would be committing mass suicide in any attack on Israel with little assurance it would succeed in destroying Israel.

Lots of folks want to preem... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lots of folks want to preemptively attack Iran to remove their ability to develop nuclear weapons. The problem I have with that is the low probability of success. We don't know where the facilities are located or how deep underground they are. Even our biggest nuclear bunker buster can only destroy hardened bunkers down to a depth of 1,000 feet. Mines commonly go more than 5,000 feet deep, so it's not difficult to make facilities that will withstand anything the U.S. currently has in inventory.

There's simply no political will in this country to invade Iran and air strikes alone will only strengthen Iran's hand politically without doing the job. It's just a matter of time before Iran has the bomb, so lets figure out how to deal with a nuclear Iran. I figure the best bet is to make it known that Iran's leaders are going to die in any nuclear exchange they initiate. The Ayatollahs don't give a crap about their own people, but they care a lot about their own skin.

"...so lets figure out h... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"...so lets figure out how to deal with a nuclear Iran."

Amen, and let's do it without shoving a gun in their face and telling them to "reach for the skies!".

The days of cowboy diplomacy are over - good riddance to bad Texans.

Mac Lorry:RE: Rada... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Mac Lorry:

RE: Radar
If the Iranians get the positions of the key radar installations (in logitude and latitude), they'll be bale to hit those spots accurately with North Korean missiles. If they are really worried about accuracy, they'll use chemical rounds.


RE: Won't wait for missiles to land.
Another difference between a Middle East exchange and ICBM: time. How long will it take an Iranian missile to hit?


RE: Nuclear war will be over in an hour.
If they attack, it will come immediately in one wave. The way to get through the anti-missile batteries is to throw more targets into the air than the defenders can shoot down.


RE: Nuclear response
Like I said: I don't think that anti-missile defense does much. A nuclear response is a valid threat.


RE: Ship-launched missile
I wouldn't use a missile. I would ship the bomb as cargo on a normal freighter. How far out of Tel Aviv do Israel stop merchant ships to inspect them?


RE: Testing in WW2
We didn't bet our survival on Hiroshima: we could have won the war without it.


RE: "Iran would be committing mass suicide in any attack on Israel with little assurance it would succeed in destroying Israel."
No, Iran's leaders would be committing their people to mass slaughter to destroy the enemy of Islam and thereby making them martyrs.

Reality check: Please re-read your statement after considering:
1. The number of attacks by suicide attacks against Israel.
2. The number of suicide attacks against the Israel's ally the United States, including but not limited to 9/11.
3. The number of suicide attacks in Iraq against the US, its allies, and Iraqis.

Israel's enemies don't seem to find committing suicide to be much of a problem.

kevino,If... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

kevino,

If the Iranians get the positions of the key radar installations (in logitude and latitude), they'll be bale to hit those spots accurately with North Korean missiles. If they are really worried about accuracy, they'll use chemical rounds

But, it's an anti-missile radar site, so the North Korean missile is likely to be intercepted. Even if it got through it's accuracy is not enough to hit the radar site. Chemical rounds are useless against military targets, at least in the short run.

The first missile Iran launches triggers Israel's nuclear response. Iran may have nuclear weapons, but not thermonuclear weapons, so their yield is likely only 10 to 30 kilotons. That means Israel's nuclear missiles are likely to survive.

The anti-missile defense means an attacker can't be sure what enemy targets will be destroyed, as strategic sites are likely to be heavily defended. That means the attacker will suffer retaliation, and that is what has kept nuclear war in the bottle for more than 50 years.

Even if Iran's leaders survive the initial exchange, they won't have a military to repel the U.S. and what's left of the IDF. They will pay with their lives and they can take that to the bank.

Let's take heart from histo... (Below threshold)
By the way, here's a brief ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

By the way, here's a brief timeline of Iran's nuclear program:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/8/19C76894-2A3A-49D7-96A5-02039F66FD20.html

This pretty much agrees with what I remember.

Notice that up until about 2004 the Iranian program is hidden, but details are starting to leak out. Then:
May04: Iran reports to the IAEA in detail about the program.
Jul04: Iran resumes work on its centrifuges for enriching Uranium, going directly against its deal with the EU-3 and IAEA.
Sep04: Iran rejects an IAEA call for a suspension. (The IAEA responds by giving them another deadline.) Iran also announces that they are stepping up conversion of yellowcake.
Oct04: Iranian Parliament ignores EU-3 demands and approves resumption of enrichment.
14Nov04: Iran reverses course and agrees to suspend uranium enrichment.
Throughout 2004, Iran is a good boy. It tries to get a better deal from the EU-3, but it keeps to the suspension and allows inspection.
By April 2005 Iran starts making noises about resuming enrichment. Shortly after that, the Iranian weapons program is back in operation in full view of the IAEA, and the Iranian Mullahs want everyone to know what they're doing.

Now, can someone explain to me why it is that the Iranians reversed themselves on 14Nov04 if it wasn't President Bush's re-election?

Now take a look at Bush's approval numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_approval_ratings_line_graph.png
May04: Bush's approval rating dips below 50%.
02Nov04: Bush wins re-election.
Apr05: Bush's approval drops to below 50% and continues down.

It seems to me that the strength of the Iranian nuclear program is inversely proportional to Bush's approval numbers. When the Democrats take over Congress next year and start Impeachment proceedings, Iran will be buying wareheads directly from Russia.

Mac Lorry;How many... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Mac Lorry;

How many anti-missile batteries will they have?
Let's say 50. Each can take out, say, four missiles in a few seconds. OK, if I can buy 300 offensive missile batteries, and I throw the first two missiles in each at the anti-missile batteries, that means each of those anti-missile batteries will have to deal with (on paper) 12 incomings -- aimed right at each of them.

Have you ever fired a machine gun? It's a great weapon: spews out an incredible stream of bullets. How does a small group of men take it out with single-shot rifles. Good technique. The machine gun can only point at one target at a time. When it runs out of ammo or the barrel overheats, it's a good, solid club.

I won't argue, and it's time to go.


RE: "If the Iranian leaders survive ... they won't have the military ..."
They won't care. They will have destroyed Israel or weakened Israel enough for Arabs to overrun it.


Bottom line: The Iranian Mullah's would have to be crazy to try it.

I think they're crazy.

This is stupid. Let the ma... (Below threshold)
John S:

This is stupid. Let the mad mulla build their bomb, hopefully it will cripple their economy. Then we'll teach Iran the game of nuclear deterrents. One boomer can kill every living thing in Iran in less than 5 minutes. My guess is we have three of them off the coast of the Persian Gulf.

LEE The former dem a... (Below threshold)
frankfucszeroiq:

LEE
The former dem administration policy on the middle east was ( appeasement and capitulation )and You dont manage a raving lunatic with nuclear weapons ..You stop them from aquiring them in the first place.."

You're pathetic Jay and so ... (Below threshold)
cat:

You're pathetic Jay and so are the sheep who follow you. Unfortunately, like you, almost everyone in your country has now been brainwashed into believing that Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapon. Well, why should we be surprised - half of you belief evolution is a lie and God made the world in six days.

Eventually you'll all be proved right - about the nuclear weapons - because the more you threaten them, the more they'll realize they need nukes to defend themselves.

But you'll have made the world an even more dangerous place than you've made it already.

Here's an idea that your violent, agressive, arrogant nation will never agree to. Help Iran develop its nuclear energy program - that way you'll be living up to your obligations under the NPT and you'll know what they're doing. Then they might start to trust you - and....

Can't have that, though, can we. Better to threaten them, make them more radical and then bomb them. Ahmadinejad might never have been elected if you hadn't interfered in their election. But he's just what you wanted.

You're evil.

Democratic adminstration... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Democratic adminstrations managed to avoid World War 3 though policy and diplomacy.

Yes, but did Wilson manage to avoid WWI, did Roosevelt manage to avoid WWII, did Truman manage to avoid the Korean War, did Johnson manage to avoid Vietnam, did Clinton manage to avoid the War with Serbia?

Lee and Mak just make this too easy.

BTW, I'm not criticizing any of the above Presidents. In fact, there was once a time when the Democrats were actually serious about national security. Those days are now behind us.

Mak, yes the CIA did initiate a coup against the Iranian government in 1953. However, don't forget that American and British forces occupied Iran during WWII simply to keep vital supply lines open. Look at the whole history.

Unfortunately, like you,... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Unfortunately, like you, almost everyone in your country has now been brainwashed into believing that Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapon.

I think the words of the Iranian President have been very helpful in this brainwashing.


Help Iran develop its nuclear energy program - that way you'll be living up to your obligations under the NPT and you'll know what they're doing.

We helped them out after the earthquake and they have been so kind to us ever since.

Yes, of course, every country in the world is benevolent except the eeeevil US and the eeevil Bush. The fact that Iran has been the foremost sponsor of terrorism over the last two decades should not give anyone any pause whatsoever. They are just misunderstood and peaceful rulers who want to wipe out the Jews and the US.

kevino,I agree you... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

kevino,

I agree you can overwhelm any system. However, the cost of an arrow missile is likely not as high as a medium range ballistic missile. Also, only U.S. and Russian ICBMs have the accuracy needed to be effective against an individual target using a conventional warhead. Of course we have much cheaper and even more accurate weapons for such tasks.

The point I'm making is that Iran doesn't nor will have the ability to take out Israel's nuclear arsenal anytime soon. That means Iran is going to be on the receiving end of Israel's likely much larger strike force. Do Iran's leaders care so much about other Islamic countries that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to pave the way for them? Given how the various Muslim groups fight in Iraq, I highly doubt the leaders of Iran see that as a workable plan.

Iran fought a bitter war with Iraq for years without being able to gain the upper hand. They then saw how the U.S. took out Iraq's best military units by air and then finished the job in just 100 hours of ground attack. Then they got to see the U.S. do it a second time. Iran understands that it's conventional weapons and forces are overwhelmingly outmatched by the U.S., so the only option of an Islamic nation that wants to play on the world stage is to gain nuclear weapons. The Iranian president is foolish and has a big mouth, but he's not the person who will be in charge of Iran's nuclear weapons. I believe Iran wants nukes to deter the U.S. from invading. Iran knows that they can't use nukes offensively and survive as a nation, so the reason to use them has to be worth their nation to them. The leaders of Iran may not be rational by western standards and they may hate Israel, but they love their own nation and their own skins more.

With the exception of 2 or ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

With the exception of 2 or 3 bloggers on this thread, the content above proves beyond doubt that the U.S. is no longer a Democratic Republic but has become an Asylumocracy.

so the only option of an... (Below threshold)

so the only option of an Islamic nation that wants to play on the world stage is to gain nuclear weapons.

That is not their only option ... they can

1> Renounce and cease all support for Islamofascist and Palestinian terrorism.

2> Stand up for Israel's right to exist.

3> Like South Africa, open up their facilities to a complete and comprehensive inspection process to assure the world that their nuclear plans are peaceful, and completely cooperate with that.

4> Establish a government that structurally protects the right of each person to live free and pursue happiness.

Of course, there is a prerequisite for all this ... that they grow up, just as the West did in the second millenium A.D, and cease their use of the Koran to justify oppression, destruction, and death.

Supporting anything less than the above is succumbing to the same blind moral equivalence that let known thugs stay in place, grow stronger and bolder ...

... and for one set (but not the ONLY set out there), kill 3000 Americans in one day.

Rich CaseboltWith ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Rich Casebolt

With Bush's wilfull & deceptive war of pre-emption, W is fast catching up to the 3000; his total is nearly 2400 & counting.

Amen, and let's do it wi... (Below threshold)

Amen, and let's do it without shoving a gun in their face and telling them to "reach for the skies!" ... The days of cowboy diplomacy are over - good riddance to bad Texans.

Isn't it ironic, that the vast majority of the people liberated from oppression since 1945, were liberated at the hand of a couple of "cowboys" ...

... and the greatest amounts of nuclear arms reductions in real terms were facilitated by a "cowboy" ...

... while those who villified the "cowboys" when they appeared (calling them "jingoistic warmongers" among other things), through their own INACTION, facilitated the expansion of oppression and mass-grave-digging, and set the stage to make this inevitible conflict longer and harder than it needed to be ...

... in the name of maintaining an appearance of peace, even as they were blind to the fact that the enemy continued to prepare for war, and/or wage it in the shadows and on the fringes.

As the old HP ads used to say, when performance must be measured by results ...

When an enemy is willing to use your good-faith willingness to negotiate, and your compassion, to fix you in place until he establishes the conditions that will allow him to irreversibly proceed with his lethal agenda over top of you ...

... and is willing to even see his own people killed to advance totalitarian tyranny ...

... sometimes, you just gotta kill the SOB and eliminate the threat, for containment is a leaky bucket that allows the thug to find effective countermeasures and alternatives to further his agenda ... and negotiation will be used against you.

Show me one tyranny, with expansionist tendencies, that stopped their expansion and reverted to rights-respecting governance on their own, without the CREDIBLE threat of force being used against it.

It was a credible threat that liberated Eastern Europe and cut down nuke stockpiles without firing a shot ...

... problem is, the policies of the cowboys' critics have diminished the credibility of that threat ... and the remaining threats are far more irrational than the Soviets; in part because they believe that the "international community" -- whose dominant views match that of the critics -- will ignore their brutality while hobbling those of us who would act decisively against them.

As a result of the critics' moral equivalence and misplaced idealism ... we now are compelled to "fire shots" to be taken seriously by those who continue to perpetrate evil in this world.

We had, and still have, RELIABLE ways to identify these perpetrators ... well before they kill even one American ... if one is willing to consider their historically-demonstrated character regarding the inalienable rights of the individual, instead of applying all the rules of the courtroom ... which are designed to protect both society and the accused individual ... and are inadequate to protect our global civilization from a thug government in its midst.

To not take action against such existential, known threats to civilization ... a policy the critics have repeatedly advocated, and when in power, implemented ... is neither compassionate nor wise --

-- for you may very well be keeping the floor cleared for the butcher's block.

Finally, do not let your other disagreements with our present Administration ... "too religious"/"too biased towards the rich"/"not eloquent"/"won't legalize pot" dissuade you from embracing the basic principles of human interaction illustrated above ... that, while war often can be avoided ...

... sometimes, it IS the answer ...

... and to not recognize that, only makes the cost in blood and treasure higher when your enemy brings it to you.

Tel Aviv has just been n... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Tel Aviv has just been nuked. Estimated casualties: 100,000+. Do you wish to:
A) Urge Israel to show restraint and protest to the UN?
B) Strike back against Iran directly?
A

Shouldn't that be:


A) Urge the smoking, bleeding dying remains of Israel to stop throwing their insides up and collapse in front of the UN (if they can make it that far)?

mak44, I simply love... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

mak44, I simply love how you back every "argument" you make with ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you. Reminds me of a bully who harbors a secret inferiority complex.

Or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and most of the Arab League dictator synchophants that agree with him.

If I am "psychopathic", as your post above brands me with, then I say you are suicidal.

Disagree with me by refuting my points with a counter argment that takes into account the context of the argument I made to begin with - which was that regardless of the past, the 1979 Iranian Embassy attack (and non-response by Jimmah) and skirt-chasing Billy C's reliance on cruise missiles and overcommitment of military forces in non-strategic conflicts (and under-resourcing the military for those tasks) while appeasing Kim Jong Il (by effectively paying ransom money to keep Kim from going nuclear in 1994) and looking the other way when the Chinese engaged in espionage, set up the current political climate dominated by Ahmadinejad's threat of using nukes to further his goal to bring about the revival of the 12th Century Caliphate.

Disagree however you wish, including at the polls in 2006 and 2008. I hope you will.

If, however, my argument means to you that I'm "psychopathic", without you stating any logical reason as to why you choose to smear me with the label, then fine. I could care less.

But if I realize I'm psychopathic, then I can't be, because the first rule of insanity is that you don't know you're insane.

Or is it just the voices in my head, that keep praying for a Hillary presidency in 2008 so that Jay's scenario can get kicked off by 2011?

To quote the lead character in the Joaquin Phoenix movie Buffalo Soldiers:

"War is Hell...but Peace is f*ckin' boring!"

/chasing tail and howling at the moon

mak44 -- at least our Presi... (Below threshold)

mak44 -- at least our President's actions will, if applied with enough resolve, eventually bring an end to this conflict.

The lack of resolve by people like you, OTOH, have kept the gulags, killing fields, and chopping blocks full and busy for decades ... with no end in sight, save for the "cowboys" riding in.

I, for one, will continue to remind the American people of the consequences of INACTION you and your ilk have advocated ... and how it even created the need for the proxy warfare you now use to tar America's reputation with.

BTW, in the case of Iran ... in the 1950's we had a choice -- intervene, or see Iran become a Soviet client state as Mossagdeh cozied up to them ... a client state with warm-water ports and oil that the Bear would never let go of.

Maybe we should ask the Iranians what they would think of that kind of international relations.

Unfortunately, people like you made us question our virtue, to the degree that we tried to do this on the cheap instead of acting decisively ... only the first of many instances where accommodation of the Leftist worldview of "peace through talk (and universal impotence)" backfired on us, when we had to finally deal with enemies encroaching upon America's -- and the world's -- legitimate interests.

Rich:As you can se... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Rich:

As you can see, mak's response to any challenge on his assertions rests upon the following three gambits:

1. Ad hominem attacks
2. Goal-post realignment/topic change (deflection)
3. Mr. Grammarian

The third bullet is especially amusing, as in another thread, he takes another poster to task for misusing "your/you're"...and then proceeds in the very next paragraph to insult said poster with a type 1. attack, using the very same "your/you're" mistake. In fact, he used BOTH words in the same sentence.

I laughed for about three minutes over that one.

You can see it for yourself under the thread:
BUSH ORDERS PROBE INTO GAS PRICES

Actually, I'll save you the... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Actually, I'll save you the trouble of looking for it--it's just too funny.

CurlyLarryMoe
Not to turn this into a syntax class, but you must be slobbering on your keyboard again-better get your drool cup on.

Troglidyte (sic) is actually spelled as Troglodyte.

"Your" is an adjective & not the contraction of "you are" as in "you're."

I am curious; when you take a dump, do you remember to wipe you're face when your finished??

Posted by: mak44 at April 26, 2006 09:30 PM

Im said poster, I have,nt h... (Below threshold)
CurlyLarryMoe:

Im said poster, I have,nt had to spell that word before that i can remember..? but somehow MAK just fit the profile..I just have,nt seen a Harryhausen film in a long time, thats all. haha when i read it again it makes me laugh at how ridiculous it is , but funny matters most to me, so if people laugh ,thats a good thing.

James ... thanks for the il... (Below threshold)

James ... thanks for the illustration, though I am well aware of what -- or is that who? -- I am dealing with here.

Even though it appears downright Syssiphean, for the sake of the others who would read comments like mak's ... and as a result, start believing Big Lies ... I try to follow the motto of my own blog when dealing with the likes of him ...

In the blogosphere, revenge is a dish best served cold -- as in cold logic, cool and collected reasoning, and cold, hard facts.

As for mak's comparison of "W's" "casualties" to 911 ... he had better keep in mind that both numbers pale to insignificance in comparison to the tens of millions who died as a result of the Leftist dithering he stands behind ... dithering that obstructed the resolute, timely, and decisive confrontation of those who perpetrate totalitarian evil upon the world for years.

As for mak's comparison ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

As for mak's comparison of "W's" "casualties" to 911 ... he had better keep in mind that both numbers pale to insignificance in comparison to the tens of millions who died as a result of the Leftist dithering he stands behind

It pales when you compare Iraq casulaties with other (Democratic-lead) endeavors:

Vietnam: 58,226 US Soldiers
non:combatants: ca.1,000,000

http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/

It would behoove some leftists to be careful when making comparisons if Iraq to Vietnam.

Oops ... I slipped into mak... (Below threshold)

Oops ... I slipped into mak's way of thinking for a minute ...

... if the jihadis are the ones pulling the triggers, how can we blame W for the 2400 lives lost in Iraq?

Mak ... this is for you ...

Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind

Maks great to trade insults... (Below threshold)
CurlyLarryMoe:

Maks great to trade insults with, but it,s futile to discuss anything logically? in other words it,s a bad marriage..!

CLM ... like I said, I try ... (Below threshold)

CLM ... like I said, I try to respond logically because others ... including many who'll never drop a comment in here ... are reading. My words are reflected off the mak's of this blogosphere, and directed to these readers.

While I'm not above getting passionate about what I believe in -- including my belief that our past civility allowed mak and his ilk to dominate the public discourse unchallenged for far too long, so a little less civility is in order -- I also don't want to see my emotions used against me, either.

Let him rant ... my way of dealing with him is as old as Matthew chapter 4. If it worked against Satan himself, it will work against the deluded as well.


James Cloninger Yo... (Below threshold)
mak44:

James Cloninger

You really aren't too bright. You can't catch a little ironic twist.

The use of "you're" & "your" in that post was a deliberate reversal intended to make the point in regard to LarryCurlyMoe's semi-literate postings. Yes, it was ad hominem because that has been the nature of his typical response to my postings in the past.

So your vilification above reflects that you just don't get content or nuance when you read. Probably explains why you think the way you do.

As for Wanderlust above, if you'd like a reasoned debate, go read the following link to a speech by Congressman Ron Paul, a Texan Republican.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

This is a Republican congressman from Bush's home state. His analysis reflects sober thought & analysis of the conduction of foreign policy, not the kind of pyschopatrhic ranting about nukes that you have been posting. That kind of careless military swagger can only lead to the destruction of the planet. People advocating that kind of destruction ( in the 50's it was 'Better dead than red") are pyschopathic, or at the very least, dangerously demented.


Any pyschiatrists or psychologists reading these postings calling for the invssions & use of nukes & missles would easily classify it as psychopathic, if not demented.

Use the above link & read the speech. Then I'd be interested to read your response.

mak the knife:Jam... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

mak the knife:
James Cloninger
You really aren't too bright. You can't catch a little ironic twist.
The use of "you're" & "your" in that post was a deliberate reversal intended to make the point in regard to LarryCurlyMoe's semi-literate postings. Yes, it was ad hominem because that has been the nature of his typical response to my postings in the past.

Uh, huh...Sure it was...

So your vilification above reflects that you just don't get content or nuance when you read.

If I want nuance, I'll call John Kerry.


Any pyschiatrists or psychologists reading these postings calling for the invssions & use of nukes & missles would easily classify it as psychopathic, if not demented.

Yeah, right. Oh, by the way, two misspelling in the above paragraph, plus the lazy use of the ampersand, and practicing psychology without a licence. Oh, are you just being nuanced again?

Hey mak44,I rarely... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey mak44,

I rarely engage my liberal counterparts here, but do you think you could be a little less batshit crazy? While I appreciate your efforts, the ravings of Dr. No do not exactly help in the fight to keep this administration from engaging in premature wars based on flimsy intelligence, as it is of course wont to do. And furthermore, your ridiculous grammatical criticisms are made all the more so in light of the fact that you cannot spell and have a loose grasp upon grammatical structure. Plus your primary tactic is lurid insults instead of substantive rebuttals.

In essence, go away, you're embarrassing us.

mantis:I usually d... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

mantis:

I usually disagree with your points, but:

the ravings of Dr. No do not exactly help

...was truly inspired. :)

I think your political side of the spectrum would gain more respect if it would do as you are doing, diavowing the likes of mak.

Now, if you could just work on getting rid of Howard Dean next...

*diavowing should be "disav... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

*diavowing should be "disavowing"...but then, you all knew that.

Hey MantisIf you h... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Hey Mantis

If you had any good sense you would see that you are embarrassing yourself.

And if it's substantial rebuttals you really want, check out this speech on the floor of the US House delivered by a Republican Congressman, Ron Paul,from, god forbid, Texas, of all places. I'd love to hear your (you're) lol take on this:

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

Some of the people on this blog have a knee-jerk tendency to resort to ad hominem & use the tactics of a Limbarf or Hannity.

Not unlike our dear Cloninger, who read my post on the other thread & drug it over here because he thought he had caught me misusing the language that I was using as a point of illustration, too many of you on ther right go hunting for the evidence that you want to find & pull the trigger before you ever have begun to absorb the content.

I am sick of the Pavlovian puppy responses that I typically get from people on the right who have grown accustomed to using the Limbarf/Hannity tactic in debate, albeit w/ their control of the mic. Too many people on this blog do the same; the tactic has become ingrained or developed from too much inbred propaganda.

All too typical of the posters on this site is the tactic of immediately launching an ad hominem attack on Carter or clinton as the usual lame right-wing defense of whatever point they think they are trying to make.

And then, along comes some semi-literate like LarryCurlyMoe attempting to make a point thru an unreasoned ad hominem response to a posting & it's just too much, not to mention illiterate.

So yes, I feel, on occasion, like a guard in a 1930's asylum, and every once in a while I find it amusing just to shove a broom handle up some inmate's ass just to hear you're (lol) squeal since a reasoned response is not forthcoming.

Addendum to Mantis, Clon... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Addendum to Mantis, Cloninger, Wanderlust & John Kerry

If you bloggers really lust for a real debate or discussion, just go back & review the content of all the postings above on this thread.

Then I'd love to hear any one of you tell me what the difference is between the tenor of these postings and the mentality of some Islamic terrorist/suicide bomber who thinks, with his sacrifice, that he is going to his reward as a martyr w/ 72 virgins ready at his beckon.

At the least, the Islamic suicidal bomber isn't bent on taking out the entire planet , if need be, in one fell swoop.

The only difference that I can determine is that none of the posters here has any anticipation of awaiting virgins.

Some of the people on th... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Some of the people on this blog have a knee-jerk tendency to resort to ad hominem

You've been looking the mirror again, I see...

Not unlike our dear Cloninger, who read my post on the other thread & drug it over here

1. I'm not your or anyone else's "dear" on here, and 2. "dragged", not "drug".

Gee, now I see why you use these tactics...they are so much fun!

All too typical of the posters on this site is the tactic of immediately launching an ad hominem attack on Carter or clinton as the usual lame right-wing defense of whatever point they think they are trying to make.

And this is different from your immediately launching into ad hominem on Bush, how?

So yes, I feel, on occasion, like a guard in a 1930's asylum, and every once in a while I find it amusing just to shove a broom handle up some inmate's ass just to hear you're (lol) squeal since a reasoned response is not forthcoming.

Oh, you are being nuanced again, I see. Good luck with that.

Then I'd love to hear an... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Then I'd love to hear any one of you tell me what the difference is between the tenor of these postings and the mentality of some Islamic terrorist/suicide bomber who thinks, with his sacrifice, that he is going to his reward as a martyr w/ 72 virgins ready at his beckon.

The tenor of the posting are in regards to various scenarios of a conflict between Israel and Iran, and various offensive/defensive strategems. And the idea that a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but potenially a threat to all of the Middle East. In that regard, the statements from AchmedDinnerJacket are very much like that of the terrorist-cum-martyr.

As for you link, and my take:

I disagree with his conclusion:
"The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention.  A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it.  The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business.  The principle of self-determination should be respected.  Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas.  We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation.  If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should."

A main part of the reason we are in the pickle we are in is that we have been hands-off and acquiescent for far too long. Our laissez-faire approach to the problem of radial Islam has resulted in numerous hijackings, bombings of embassies, bases, nightclubs, the killing of innocents abroad, hostage-taking, culminating in the loss of over 3000 lives, four planes, and 2 very large building (and several smaller surrounding ones) on a fateful day in early autumn in 2001.

Neville Chamberlain believed it was best to leave Hitler alone, on the promise that Hitler would never invade Poland.

That worked out really well, didn't it?

*radial, of course should h... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

*radial, of course should have been "radical", in case you want to play English teacher again.

CloningerI hoped f... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Cloninger

I hoped for a better response than you're's. (lol-in case your (sic) trigger happy)

If you ever watched "Keeping Up Appearances" on PBS, you might have caught the reference to "Our dear." But then, I realize that, to you, PBS is a hotbed of a comsymp network for soft-on-terrorist & pro-Commie Dems.

I grew up in the 50's as an extremist re the Communists and their entire infiltration of the US government and I well recall espousing the line of crap, "Better dead than Red" that was the jingoistic war cry of that era.

As I read the postings on this thread, it becomes apparent, that that mentality that I had as a kid and the mentality exhibited here amounts to "Better dead than alive."

Given the laws of nature & the drive to survive engrained in any successful species known to man, it occurs to me that people who propound some of the lunacy on this thread are genetically malprogrammed for survival.

Or are we to assume that it's (its for 'LattyCurlyMoe' ) just a full moon and a phase that you are all going through?

I'm a dual British-American... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'm a dual British-American citizen, I watched KUA on BBC. You are no "Rose", and I am not Hyacinth.

I grew up in the 50's as an extremist

Of that, I have no doubt.

You know, I attempted to be nice and posted my response to your little link with some civility and cool-headed thinking. And, in my response I did not resort to insulting you. I thought perhaps you might be able to offer your thoughts on what you got out of the link, and we might attempt a dialogue.

But, I see, you don't really care to have a debate on your link. All you wanted to do was post a link and say "I'm better that you, you Pavlovian Puppies (at least you aren't using "Pussys" anymore).

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that your only purpose to me will be to mock you when I'm feeling impish, or to simply disregard you.

As for Better Dead than Red...well, I guess today's analogy would be "Better Dead than Dhimmi"...and if faced with that choice, well, I would probably choose the former as well. To quote Patrick Henry: "Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!"


Given the laws of nature & the drive to survive engrained in any successful species known to man, it occurs to me that people who propound some of the lunacy on this thread are genetically malprogrammed for survival.

Genetic malprogramming usually results in miscarriages. Since I have obviously survived gestation, and lived a substantially long and successful life, I would say your assertion is rubbish, mean-spirited, and inane.

Anyway, since you have no desire to actually discuss your link, or even the main thrust of the thread, I shall leave you to shout at the metaphorical windmills for the night.

Toodles.

CloningerMy most r... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Cloninger

My most recent post apparently was written as you wrote yours and I like the discussion. While I don't agree w/ everything you said, it is clear that you are the kind of rational antagonist that I had hoped to engage.

Your're (lol) correction of "radial" was quick & unecessary as I wouldn't have picked it apart because I am well aware of typos. We both have xmitted before re-reading carefully.

Apologies to others for this intrapersonal debate, but glad to have encountered you. It is late & I'll look for you again.

Ron Paul is a different kin... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul is a different kind of RINO -- for years he was a card-carrying Libertarian. He joined the GOP out of political expediency. The excerpt James provided is consistent with those Libertarian roots.

While I often agree with a lot of what he says, he is dead wrong on this ... for even if we were to go beyond what the good Congressman wants, take a page from the Pat Buchanan playbook, and unplug our extensive interconnections to the world (to avoid "intervention" in every sense of the word, and to eliminate these interconnections as targets), this expansionist enemy would continue to spread, and eventually bring the fight to our shores.

Maybe not next week ... but sooner or later, we (or our children) would have to face them, and the cost ... in their lives, as well as our lives and liberty ... will be several orders of magnitude higher than what we are presently paying ...

... which, because of the INACTION advocated and implemented by the critics of this Administration, is already far higher than it needed to be.

What the Iranians are doing is not legitimate payback for our actions in the 1950's ... people fighting for freedom don't support terrorists that intentionally target noncombatants. (Same reason why the vast majority of Iraq's "insurgents" are not the "freedom fighters" Michael Moore made them out to be)

I don't think that payback is even close to the primary motivating factor for them ... it is the desire to see their worldview imposed upon the world, plain and simple.

Their worldview: totalitarian tyranny, under their total control.

It must be opposed ... in a timely manner, with resolve, decisively.

Or we will be "playing the game."

Dear Jay,I did not... (Below threshold)

Dear Jay,

I did not understand what exactly are you trying to say? Are you some how glorifying or predicting a World War?
Let us assume for a second that Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons( which it isn't, there isn't any proof that is either) why can't diplomacy be used as an option? If USA makes Iran feel safe and Iran does the same such a situation can be avoided. I have come to believe that the solution to the problem is to forget the past and think about the future.
Is this what we were born for? USA can make Iran feel safer by starting to disarm itself. That way Iran will feel less threatened.

I did not understa... (Below threshold)
I did not understand what exactly are you trying to say?

Appeasement kills.

Mak44 I,ve read Yo... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Mak44

I,ve read Your postings above and there are numerous mispells and errors. this does not matter to me and is irrelevant to any of the discussions, so please stick to issues and lay off the "Im a college scholar in english grammar kick" you not impressing anyone, but for yourself..

This is what I find kind of... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

This is what I find kind of funny: One of the reasons I jumped ship years ago and left the left, is that I looked around myself and realized many in my party were batshit crazy.
Mantis, one of Wizbang's resident lefties, seems to be noticing something similar.
Come to the darkside mantis...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy