« The price of failure | Main | It's nice when a friend of a friend makes it big... »

Time To Strike at the Head of the Snake

Bob Owens has an excellent, and unfortunately probably dead on, analysis of the situation in Syria and Iran.

Whether or not the President acknowledges it, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria. The question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated, and if we will take the steps needed end this state of conflict with a minimal loss of life on all sides.

Any response we make--political, economic or military--may trigger a renewed rocket assault on Israel by Hezbollah, and a dramatic surge in violence against U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq by Shia militias loyal to Iran. This is in addition to direct counterstrikes that the Syrian and Iranian military may have preplanned against U.S. forces and allied nations throughout the Middle East. Such actions would likely include Iranian attempts to target and destroy refineries, oil pumping stations, ports, and pipelines and oil rigs in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf Nations, in addition to an attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping, thereby paralyzing many of the world's economies dependent on the free flow of Persian Gulf oil.

Therefore, the best and only option available to the United States and allied nations threatened by Iran and Syria is an overwhelming series of air strikes that will cripple these ability of these two nations to project military power both directly and indirectly, along with the explicit message that further measures taken by Iran and Syria to effect changes through the use of terrorism or through conventional warfare will result in far more debilitating attacks that would wreck the economies of these nations and threaten the very existence of their regimes.

The "biggest sticks" in the Iranian arsenal are two-fold; their ability to influence terrorists in Iraq and in Lebanon, and their purported ability to close the Persian Gulf to shipping via military means. Syria has much more limited capabilities.

Very little can be done to directly stop Syrian and Iranian contributions to terrorism, but as Syria is something of a client state of Iran, our best opportunity may be to take on the "head of the snake;" where Iran leads, Syria will likely follow, and Iran is in a far more precipitous position than they would have us believe.

It is a very long post, so you might want to print this one and read it over the holiday. It is definitely worth your time.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Time To Strike at the Head of the Snake:

» Wizbang Blue linked with Pelosi's Opening to Syria May Have Worked

Comments (41)

We need to do something abo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

We need to do something about this! Oh I forgot, our Army is shot. Maybe we can send the Coast Guard over?

Definately gets my vote...b... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Definately gets my vote...but I just don't think Bush has it in him any more.

Iran vis-a-vis the United States now is EXACTLY like Hitler vis-a-vis England in the mid-1930s.

Exactly.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, and gave hundreds of speeches wherein he talked of dominating the world and wiping out the Jews.

Ahmadinejad is walking down the same path...and we are letting him do so!!!

We're gonna fight this monster sooner or later. Why let him get stronger first???

Barney, Barney, Blarney,<br... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Barney, Barney, Blarney,
Don't cover up your glee that our army is "shot" and not fit in your mind to take on Iran. Even if they weren't busy in Iraq, you'd be bitching anyway if they were sent on an agressive mission against Iran.

Barney also seems to be for... (Below threshold)

Barney also seems to be forgetting that while the Army and Marines are busy in Iraq, we have two other whole Forces that are available for action -- and if you're talking deep strikes WITHOUT occupation, as well as major economic disruption, then the Air Force and the Navy are the ones to go with.

J.

Jay, Barney also forgets (o... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jay, Barney also forgets (or never knew) LOGISTICS and GEOGRAPHY!!

First, LOGISTICS! In order to utilize ground forces and short-range air and sea craft you first have to transport them...and all their supplies, to the THEATER OF OPERATIONS. That would mean that in order to utilize our forces against Iran and/or Syria we would FIRST have to get them in Theater. Which brings me to...

GEOGRAPHY Going West to East we have:
Syria - American forces (Iraq) - Iran - American forces (Afghanistan)

When you throw Israel on the front end...you have a Syria/Iran sandwich!!!

Justrand, did you know that... (Below threshold)

Justrand, did you know that Iran has the Muslim world's largest Jewish community (approx. 35,000), that there are 11 synagogues operating in Teheran, and that there is a Jewish member of Iran's parliament? Hardly sounds like a country that wants to exterminate Jews.

The idea that Iran with its 0 nuclear warheads poses any sort of threat to Israel with its 200 or so nuclear warheads is just laughable.

It's hysterical to see all of you right wingers who are so embittered by the debacle in Iraq and the shellacking you took in the election trying to shift the attention to Iran. You seem to have this hope that Tomahawks flying toward Teheran will somehow rescue your beleaguered commander-in-chief.

Don't get all excited about the prospect of us attacking Iran and Syria. Bush knows that's the last thing he needs right now. He is smart enough to know that pouring gasoline on the fires of the Middle East probably wouldn't be too wise right now.


Hey Justrand, you think thi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Hey Justrand, you think things are bad in Iraq now for our troops? You just go ahead and attack Syria or Iran from Iraq and let the party begin.

oh boy...let's start with B... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

oh boy...let's start with BarneyG2000:
"Hey Justrand, you think things are bad in Iraq now for our troops? You just go ahead and attack Syria or Iran from Iraq and let the party begin."

Ah...kind of like giving Franklin Roosevelt THIS advice: "Mr. President, sure we lost 3,000 men on December 7, 1941...but if we go to war with Germany and Japan we'll likely lose ONE HUNDRED TIMES that many!!!"

We actually lost OVER 100 times that many!!

And besides, BarneyG2000, look at it this way...we'll be PULLING OUT OF IRAQ (just not the way you'd lke, eh?)
***

and now Larkin, who can't get ENOUGH of Ahmadinejad's Grade-A Bullshit!! "hardly sounds like a country that wants to exterminate Jews."

hmmm??? Enjoy these quotes from Ahmadinejad:

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred..."

"[I would] sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,"

"Where did they come from? Are they human beings? 'They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.' A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians. Next to them, all the criminals of the world seem righteous."

and so on...and so on...

So why does this beast NOT kill the Jews he already has within his grasp??
Look up Teresenstadt for the answer!

Hey Justrand, you think ... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Hey Justrand, you think things are bad in Iraq now for our troops? You just go ahead and attack Syria or Iran from Iraq and let the party begin.

You're trying to explain gravity to a fish.

Hey Lorie - can you please ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Hey Lorie - can you please tell these guys that the elections are over?

"More than 140 bodies have been found dumped across Baghdad over the past three days, police said Wednesday.
Police said 52 bullet-riddled bodies were found Wednesday, with 20 of them blindfolded, tied up and possibly tortured.

Police also discovered 29 bodies on Tuesday and 60 on Monday."

hey jp2...yes, the Jihadist... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

hey jp2...yes, the Jihadists in Iraq won when the Democrats re-took Congress.

But NOW they (the Jihadists) need to turn the heat up high enough in Iraq to give their ALLIES (the Democrats) an excuse to cut & run.

The teamwork, while misguided, IS impressive!

The United Nations said Wed... (Below threshold)
civl behavior:

The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of
Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.

George can put this headliner in his bilion dollar bush library when it is built. There will not be much room for anything else.
Bush is death.

The words don't exist that can accurately describe the incompetence and true absolute stupidity and ignorance of this administration and it's supporters.

To say this GOP administration has over-reached is an understatement. Truly it is the worst of times.

Okay, I finally get it. Bush staying in Iraq until the job is done means staying until all Iraqis are dead. Then, it'll be really easy to establish a democracy. Makes sense.

Larkin, astigafa, b'goole, ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Larkin, astigafa, b'goole, jpe & civl behavior are now offical members of the club for those that have shit for brains. Lets all give them a hand-clap clap . Oh yeah why are you so concerned about Iraqs killing each other now? Did we miss hearing you whine when your old buddy Saddam killed that many for sport after supper each day. Maybe we should turn up our hearing aids.

Has anyone read the book "C... (Below threshold)
John Birtch:

Has anyone read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"? By John Perkins. Hey the Dude was from Tilton New Hampshire, so you people should love this story. My point in mentioning this is this, there are 2 side to every coin. I love the United States. I oppose those who seek to bring us harm. But we must ask ourselves, are we doing anything that may be aggravating other nation? If we are a just nation, we have to be honest with ourselves and ask honest questions. Is our government and American corporations covertly interferring in the afairs of other nations? If so, do you expect them to keep Americans updated on the progress of their nasty deeds? Perhaps its time that the US stops delibertly bankrupting lesser nations with "economic aid" in the forms of huge loans from the World Bank, for the sole purpose of bringing them under US control. If some nation did that to us, we'd be pissed as all hell. We need to cease and desist, only then can we stand on the moral highground. Read the book, expand your perspective.

He seems to forget the enti... (Below threshold)

He seems to forget the entire presence of the US military in the area. Shutting down the straight of Hormuz would be nigh impossible with the US AND NATO force Navies in the area. the US has a Navy base in Sala Mina, Bahrain, and as someone mentioned earlier, all the US and allied forces in Iraq and nearby countries.

Very good Justrandt.<... (Below threshold)

Very good Justrandt.

But if you notice, Ahmedinejad's rhetoric is mostly directly against the state of Israel. There isn't a one-to-one equivlance between the state of Israel and Jews. There are many Jews, especially here in America, who think the state of Israel is a dumb idea (they voted 75% for Kerry as well).

So, why don't you just address the content of my first message and explain why Ahmedinejad hasn't exterminated the 35,000 Jews in Iran if he is hell-bent on wiping out the Jews. Don't you think Fox News would have a field day running stories about pogroms in Iran against the Jews?


"But if you notice, Ahmedin... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

"But if you notice, Ahmedinejad's rhetoric is (mostly) directly against the state of Israel."

Larkin how about you stop being a pompous asshat and SAY what you mean!
DOES Ahmedinejad want to destroy Israel but not kill Jews????!!! get to the point!!!!! if you even have one..

Knightbridge,My po... (Below threshold)

Knightbridge,

My point is that Iran hosts a large Jewish population that is not being persecuted and exterminated. So that every fact should demonstrate that Iranian rhetoric is esesntially anti-Zionist rather than anti-Jewish. Surely you understand there is a difference there?

Ahmadinejad has said that Germany and Austria should provide a homeland for the Jews since they were responsible for what happened to them in the 1930's. Personally, I would like us to bring all of the Jews to America since this is a land where Jews can live free of the threat of persecution. And they are going to be a hell of a lot safer here than they will be in the middle of 200 million screaming insane Arabs.

After all, what is the big deal with that plot of barren desert landscape on the Mediterranean that makes it so essential for the Jews to live there? Nothing. In fact, more and more Israelis are emigrating to America because they realize there's just no point to living there and they can much more easily realize their dreams in America.


OK, cool..why didn't you ju... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

OK, cool..why didn't you just say that in the first place.
Anti-Zionist rather than Anti-Jewish, BUT...even if Germany and Austria would open their arms wiping Israel away is the same as wiping Jewish away if they don't want to go.
You make a good point, they would start dealing with the Jews in Iran, before they moved to Israel.
It's just to even be slightly in line with that NUT with the bellhop jacket, makes you a target, and makes it more important to be clear on what your saying. Thanks for clarifying...

I believe, unfortunately, t... (Below threshold)
epador:

I believe, unfortunately, the time to strike the head of the snake was over two decades ago. It is a tragedy that likely millions will die to pay for this error.

Larkin: "Ahmedinejad's r... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Larkin: "Ahmedinejad's rhetoric is mostly directly against the state of Israel."

Emphasis on "mostly", but yes, I have noticed that...because the MSM, et al, is intent on making sure they carry this water for him. He has made LOTS of statements against the Jews, and ACTIVELY supports those who LOUDLY and OFTEN proclaim: "Death to the Jews". But Ahmedinejad is VERY clever...Hitler clever.

Hitler, at the height of his and Germany's power maintained Teresenstadt as a "model Jewish settlement" for the Press and Red Cross to see. Why? Because there were "useful idiots" around the world who he still needed to persuade before he could kill all the Jews. So he kept some in Teresenstadt...essentially a German version of a Potempkin Village.

Larkin, you then enterered a line that is straight out of EVERY Pogrom in history...starting with the Romans: "After all, what is the big deal with that plot of [name of whatever place the Jews happened to be at the time] that makes it so essential for the Jews to live there?"

When Ahmedinejad gets his nuclear weapons he will immediately (his words) use them to destroy Israel. The 35,000 Jews in Iran will cease to exist at the same time. THAT is a fact.

Kudos to Justrand. Seems t... (Below threshold)
epador:

Kudos to Justrand. Seems to have throwm some water on the inflammatory opposition here.

My point is that I... (Below threshold)
My point is that Iran hosts a large Jewish population that is not being persecuted and exterminated. So that every fact should demonstrate that Iranian rhetoric is esesntially anti-Zionist rather than anti-Jewish.

So, in other words, Ahmedinejad does not want to exterminate all Jews everywhere, which would indeed be horrific, he just wants to exterminate the country of Israel, which makes it OK.

Glad you cleared that up.

I've spent more than a year... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

I've spent more than a year in Iraq since 2003, in several trips as a (retired military) contractor, most recently I left in May of this year.

This is a dumb idea.

It involves both overstating and understating the Iranian threat.

Overstating to justify an attack on a country which cooperated with us in Afghanistan, and has shown a willingness to have some kind of dialogue. Their desire to get a nuclear weapon is rational if you look at the threatening rhetoric the US puts out (Axis of Evil) and see how 2 members of the Axis were treated: powerless Iraq invaded, nuke-armed North Korea left alone. It also overstates Ahmedinajad's power and underestimates the power of deterrence.

Understating to the degree to which the Iranians now permeate the south of Iraq and their influence in the government in Baghdad is very strong. Advisors talk about the outright Iranian domination of some Iraqi ministries, especially the Interior Ministry. Iranian intelligence and special forces advise and equip the Mahdi Army, Badr Corps and other Shia militias. The Iranians have public offices in southern Iraqi cities like Basra. Persian is spoken openly in the south by these Iranian agents hanging about in government offices.

As one Iraqi friend told me "The Iranians have 130,000 American hostages in Iraq now."

However much you bombed Iran, the Iranians and their proxies would make life unbearable for the USA in Iraq, and possibly cause a historic debacle. The USA does not have the reserves to handle the full-scale conflict which could result, and could be humiliated if the Chinese and Russians stepped in.

This is the kind of stupidity that comes from people with no military experience or experience in the region. Morons.

observer 5...should we surr... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

observer 5...should we surrender now, or wait a short while??

"...overstating and understating the Iranian threat."

Overstating...they have "no territorial ambitions"

Understating...they cannot be defeated!!

Boy, I sure hope they're PAYING you to write this shit!!

Overstating? Within MINUTES of achieveing a functional atomic weapon these morons will attack Israel with it. Minutes. They have stated they will do EXACTLY that, at whatever cost to themselves. I find your acceptance of a million PLUS Israeli deaths as an "Overstated" threat to be puzzling...at best.

Understating? Iran has one BIG problem that alQueada does NOT have. They have a country...and the threat of having that taken away from them means they have something to defend. In the Vietnam was the North Vietnamese could and DID send their ENTIRE military South...secure in the knowledge they we would not (and DID NOT) invade the North. That guarantee does NOT apply to Iran.

Thanks for playing...now go back to Tehran.

Deadliest Attack Since Iraq... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Deadliest Attack Since Iraq War Started...Militants Kill 145, Wound 238...

We are being told that we must stay in order to prevent chaos. What do you call this? If our presence could not prevent this, what are we doing there?

Cheer up ... things are about to get much worse.

Soon, very soon, one of the oil producing coutries are going to dump the dollar for Euros. This will cause a run on the IOU's president dumbass has run up. The coming crash will make the Great Depression look like Spring Break. And believe this - no one is going to be in the mood to help us after all the death and carnage we've wrought.

Happy Holidays

So, Justrand (you moron), I... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

So, Justrand (you moron), Iran would attack Israel with their one nuke as soon as they got it, facing certain retaliation from Israel's estimated 200+ nukes, but wouldn't risk a few thousand of their special operations forces to wage unconventional warfare on our troops, cut our LOC in Iraq to retaliate against our bombing them? Leaving aside the question on whether US troops should be put in such risk to eliminate a hypothetical threat to Israel.

I just don't get it - must come from actually knowing something about this stuff from the real world instead of fatassed bloggers like "Confederate Yankee."

observer 5...look dummy, th... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

observer 5...look dummy, they will wind up crafting and readying for use more than one at the same time (the U.S., using #2 pencils and slide-rules made THREE at the same time).

It would only take THREE to kill 75% of the Israeli population.

The President of Iran says: "[I would] sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel"

YOU call this "a hypothetical threat to Israel"

First, the President of Ira... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

First, the President of Iran does not call the shots in Iran, the Council of Guardians does. Second, Israel has a survivable nuclear deterrent, on submarines as well as hardened sites in the Negev and who knows where else. Would Iranian military officers carry out orders to nuke Israel, and face retaliatory destruction of Tehran, Isfahan, Qum, etc.? Doubtful. I lived through years of threats from Khrushchev's Soviet Union and especially extreme threats from Mao's China, what politicians say and what they do are different things. Israel will have to live with nuclear standoff with Iran the same way the US did with the USSR and China.

What I do know is that bombing Iran would be the end of US presence in Iraq, of our efforts to stabilize Iraq. That is guaranteed. It would also probably be the end of any influence in the Middle East at all. Why should American soldiers in Iraq have to die because the Iranian president made a few offhand remarks about Israel? Iran is not a threat to the United States.

observer 5: "Iran is not a ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

observer 5: "Iran is not a threat to the United States."

so when Ahmedinejad LEADS his followers in chants of "Death to America...Death to America" you don't find that threatening?

you're either stoooopid...or feel the same way!!

either way you are no friend to THIS country

Justrand,I don't f... (Below threshold)
John:

Justrand,

I don't find it threatening... Why should I?

Iran is not in any position to cause "Death to America", any more than Ann Coulter is going to "Invade all their countries, kill all their leaders, and convert their people to Christianity".

You need to get a grip, dude.

It would be very difficult to topple this country from the outside. Right now your greatest worries should be preservation of your Constitution, the environment, trade defecits, monetary policy, the budget defecit, and the national debt, all of which are more likley to cause America to be weakened.

Observer 5 presents a compelling argument complete with a bit of background on his qualificatons, and a structured line of reasoning complete with names, places, and history. He strikes me as a credible author.

You've got a pretty livley opinion, by calling a vet "no friend to this country". Tell us about your experiences in that part of the world that leads you to your conclusions.

John

John: "Iran is not in an... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

John: "Iran is not in any position to cause "Death to America"...?"

ALL of America? No, of course not. Not even ALL of Israel. 75% of Israel sure...but there would still be plenty of Jews left, eh? Though yes, Israel could and would destroy most of Iran in retaliation...at least if 3-egg Omelet is not still in power.

As for America...yup, probably no more than a few million people, And there would still be lots left.
But you don't even care about them...not being an American yourself.

The mantra that you and "Observer 5" are spewing is not new...despite how clever you believe it to be. It's been spruced up a bit since the 1930's...but it still stinks like the steaming excrement it represents.

Thanks John. You caught my... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

Thanks John. You caught my point. I would like to avoid wholesale death of American soldiers in Iraq and strategic disaster for the United States in the region, which a bombing strike on Iran would guarantee, without even eliminating the threat of an Iranian nuke.

Justrand and those calling for the US to bomb Iran are not acting in the interests of the USA, they are obviously more concerned about Israel and its settlements on the West Bank.

observer 5 (& John, a kindr... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

observer 5 (& John, a kindred, if not the same, spirit): "Justrand and those calling for the US to bomb Iran are not acting in the interests of the USA, they are obviously more concerned about Israel and its settlements on the West Bank."

hmmm? Re-read my posts (or have your guardian read them to you) and you will NOT find me advocating "bombing Iran". Not that it may not come to that...I just am not advocating it at this time. What I AM ADVOCATING is confronting Iran!! And yes, defending our ally, Israel. (yes, observer 5 & John, that may mean saving Jewish lives...get over it)

John...tells us Americans: "...your greatest worries should be preservation of your Constitution, the environment, trade defecits, monetary policy, the budget defecit, and the national debt"

John's advice boils down to: "ignore those men flying airplanes into your buildings, and those men busy obtaining nuclear weapons while urging 'Death to America'...and ignore every other threat...until it's too late!"

Well gee whiz John and Oblivious 5, I happen to believe DEALING with a threat EARLY is better (by far) from dealing with it when it is almost or TOO late!

WTF are you saying? Are yo... (Below threshold)
observer 5:

WTF are you saying? Are you confused yourself or just trying to confuse everyone else, Justrand?

The original post says: the best and only option available to the United States and allied nations threatened by Iran and Syria is an overwhelming series of air strikes

Your first comment is: Definately [sic] gets my vote...but I just don't think Bush has it in him any more.

Now you say you're not for bombing Iran, just "confronting" Iran. WTF does that mean? Confront them how? With what?

BTW, how old are you? You reason and spell like a high school student. If you are of age, have you contacted your local Army or USMC recruiter? If the threat is so severe, why aren't you signed up?

Justrand,If you're... (Below threshold)
John:

Justrand,

If you're interested you may want to check out the literature on a specialty called Risk Management.

Risk is basicaly the combination of the impact of a risk occuring with it's probability.

You COULD draw up a list of thousands of risks, but you can't manage every one, so you assign an impact, a probability, and multiply. You then get a ranked list of stuff to start planning for.

A bunch of poor people yelling "death to america" doesn't really make it very high on the list.

Now, people flying airplanes into buildings. That did make the list. The Clinton administration told Bush that Al Quaeda was their top threat. The PDB memo even said it would be airplanes... But Bush was asleep at the switch. That was bad risk management, and it happened on his watch.

Sometimes risk comes not by doing nothing, but through action, even action designed to reduce other risks. Invading Afghanistan... Good idea, if we really wanted Osama. Invading Iraq... Bad idea. Introduced a whole bunch of risk and opportunity costs.

Anyway, it's an interesting field of study. Let me know if you want any links or more information.

John

So John, just exactly what ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

So John, just exactly what should Bush have done with a warning that Al Quaeda was a threat and that planes might be used? If Bush had been "awake" at the wheel, just what exactly should he have done with that info? Even after 9/11, Democrats would not even allow profiling and people like Michael Moore and his followers claimed this was not really a war and that the President was overstating the threat of terrorism. How much more willing would they have been before 9/11 to let the President take measures to protect the citizenry?

I have never heard anyone claim that Bush was given a time or place or a specific airline. Should air travel have been grounded indefinitely? The threat existed before Bush took office. The plot was in the works back when Clinton was still in office and if so much info about it was passed on to Bush, then why didn't the Clinton administration take action on it before they left office? If they had so much specific intel to pass to Bush, then why didn't they do something with it? Did they get the info mere hours before Bush took office? Why hold it and pass on the problem to the next President unless they got it just hours before they left? If it was so urgent, then why hold it? Maybe that was just the Clinton way, pass it on, just like they did the recession they left for Bush to clean up.

So explain to me how Clinton's risk management just before 9/11 was okay, but Bush was asleep at the wheel. Clinton was in office for eight years, after all.


John, actually Risk Assessm... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

John, actually Risk Assessment & Management is part of my job.

That said this sticks out from your last post: "A bunch of poor people yelling "death to america" doesn't really make it very high on the list."

This link (HatTip LGF) takes you to a very detailed article on the Iranian death squads being actively recruited for exporting terrorism
http://www.meforum.org/article/1059

and this "bunch of poor people" is in reality tens of thousands being LED in this chant by the President of Iran. Iran is not some "poor nation", but rather one sitting on a very sizable chunk of the world's oil supply. And eagerly using that wealth to obtain and/or develop every weapons, WMDs included, that they can.

Throw into the mix that the President of Iran is INSANE, and is actively SEEKING the destruction of the world in order to usher in the "12th Imman"...and the Rick Assessment is HIGH!!

Of course, there have always been those who seek "Peace in our time". Neville Chamberlain is one of the most infamous. But Thomas Paine summed it up the best in 'The Crisis':
***

"I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;"

OH, THERE IT IS! The chick... (Below threshold)
Chad:

OH, THERE IT IS! The chickenhawk argument. I love that. I won't argue the point, I'll just talk about your spelling, denigrate your intelligence, then I'll use the chickenhawk thingy to try to silence you when I don't really have anything to refute your argument with. I really, really love that.

Justrand,We have e... (Below threshold)
John:

Justrand,

We have evangelicals here that believe Jesus is coming in our lifetime. We've got them in our government as well. I remember one during Reagan or Bush I saying that it doesn't matter what we do to the environment because Armagedon was going to happen during our lifetime.

That's just as crazy as that 12th Imman thing.

Sooo.... Sounds like we'd both like peace, but have differences in how to get there.

Given what we now know, based on our experience in Iraq (their reistance to our military occupation has grown over time), and our experience in Afghanistan (we've managed to hold the major city, but the tribal regons are more difficult, and the Taliban is still a problem)...

Given that, what sort of military operation against Iraq would you propose to bring lasting peace to the country/region?

From my experience we've been whacking a hornets nest with a stick. It's a pretty good tool for hitting the nest, but it's a pretty bad tool for killing the individual hornets. The more you swing it, the more hornets buzz around your head. Eventualy you start getting stung. Then it's hard to get them calmed down again.

I personaly think education and outreach programs are more effective than guns and bombs if you want to reach hearts and minds.

By the way, have you given any thought to why they chant "Death to America"? It's not because they hate our freedoms. It's not because they're crazy. Have you wondered about this?

Here's a hint... I was in Indonesia about 3 years back. World's most populous Muslim country. Then about 70% of their people had a positive view of America and Americans. Today, only 30% have a positive view of America.

Why did that happen? This is the key to understanding how to solve the problem.

Regards,

John

Larkin: "After all, what is... (Below threshold)
MaximilianBeers:

Larkin: "After all, what is the big deal with that plot of barren desert landscape on the Mediterranean that makes it so essential for the Jews to live there? Nothing."

Because Judaism's holiest sites are IN that barren land, a--hole!




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