Dumb Ox,
I just discovered, via Technorati, that I'm on your blogroll. Now you're on mine!
In Christ the King,
Jovan
OK Let me get this straight...Since when do the one who are LOOSING call the shots???!?
Hamas was getting the Shiite kicked out of them and they kept increasing the number of prisoners that they were demanding be released. Now Hezbollah is getting their turbans handed to them on a platter and THEY are setting conditions for the cease fire??? I don't think so.
This will go on until Isreal is provoked into attacking Syria. At that time Iran will flex its muscles and it will be up to us to b!***-slap them into submission. I just hope we are on the ball to do it. It would be real easy to launch a strike from Iraq and Afganistan (we can apologize later) and if we get folks moving in from Germany instead of sitting in the beer halls we can hit them hard where is counts.
Yesterday former CIA director (___?) Woolsey was on Hannity pushing for us to strike Syria and leave Iran alone. Iran has already said that they will attack if such a move is made so it is obvious we have to kill both birds at once.
Whoa, I have noticed recently that there seems to be a disease in the conservative blogging community. And it is spreading.
The disease is military adventurism. Now I am sad to diagnose it on your comment page my dear Dumb Ox.
No, it would not be "easy" to invade Iran or Syria from Iraq. No, we would not easily "bitchslap" them down. No, it is not a smart move for our military.
Iran has a much larger army than Iraq's when we invaded that country. In addition they have a religious devotion that the Iraqis didn't have. All of that adds up to a situation that might break the American Republic by straining our resources.
Let's finish the job in Iraq before we go invading other countries.
Let's stick to conservative values. Let's return our country to a Republic.
Jovan - I'll put you also on the personal Dumb Ox Blogroll. Welcome and thanks.
Veritas & Shining - I am no proponent of military adventurism. In fact I am closer to the isolationist libertarians in spirit than to the neo-conservatives who want to aggressively export Western values and institutions.
Problem is: history may not leave us any choice.
What Syria and Iran do in response to Israeli decimation of Hezbollah will determine the next stage. Largely because European support will be required to launch the kind of assault on Iran that would be necessary.
Rest assured, Shining, that the agenda in Iran will be totally arial--but it will be massive on all possible nuclear sites. And also note that Veritas did not propose an "invasion" at all.
Furthermore, the insurgency in Iraq is largely possible because of Iranian and Syrian support, and so a serious setback to their military capacity (all from the air) will facilitate stabilizing Iraq--which as I have long maintained is priority #1 in the Middle East, because all other progress depends on succeeding there.
Afghanistan is a totally other theater in that regard and presents its own problems--but NATO is there and will have to step up to the darn plate.
Military adventurism? We can't pick the times in which we are born.
Don't listen too closely to Murtha.
p.s. to Veritas - So true about the laughable war of words.
One of my favorite laughable claims is that Israel is using "disproportionate" force!!!
Hilarious!
So, let me figure this out. France, Spain, Russia, and Kofi Anon think for self-defense to be OK, that as many of the good guys have to die as the bad guys?
No wonder those boobs can't win a war. Of course the Russians did win one war, and more of their guys died than the people they beat, so at least they're consistent (unless you look at their war against Chechen rebels).
In WWII our military did what was necessary for victory. During the cold war we got this mind set that we better not upset the bad guy because he might be bigger than us and he might hurt us. I maintain that a lot of the problems that our country has had to face was because we were careful not to offend the Russians (that was certainly the case during Vietnam and possibly durign Korea - although the 8 million Chinese friends of the North Koreans were more worrisome).
It wasn't until Reagan stood firm against the Russians that victory became a reality.
The analogy might not be clear here but I think that the reality is that we have to stand firm to the Iranians (and once again to the North Koreans) or we will be faced with an uphill battle that we might not be able to handle. The whole basis for the Bush Doctrine originally was 'get them before they get us' (I'm paraphrasing).
I think an invasion of Iran is a bad idea. I think a solid bombing attack with air, sea and land base munitions has to be devestating to have an effect. Yesterday I was listening to James Woolsey (apologies, I couldn't remember his name earlier) claim that we should attack Syria and that will be enough and the Iranians will back down because we will frighten them. Well it won't happen. Iran is chomping at the bit to be able to get involved in a way that they can somehow justify in their twisted way to the world opinion. Isreal or us attacking Syria will be the trigger. They've already said they would. And the UN will back them up.
When (If) Isreal is forced or trapped into going after Syria, we need to be ready to back them up by hitting Iran so that the Iranians can't follow through with any threats to "protect" Syria or eliminate Isreal. If we don't, I feel that the situation will degenerate until we have no choice except a war of attrition on the ground in Iran while we are still in Iraq and Afganistan.
As far as our forces being spread too thin, in 2004 Rumsfeld proposed that we redeploy our troops from Europe where the threat no longer existed to Asia and the middle east where they were needed. He and Bish were lamblasted for ignoring our friends so it was dropped. All of our service men and women perform a commendable job and I have the utmost respect for them. I do not feel that our country's needs are being addressed having forces stationed in peaceful areas while we have reservists doing year-long tours in a war zone. That is not anti military or asking too much of too few, rather it is nothing more than a scheduling issue. We need to put our troops where they are needed.
I guess I am the partisan for empire here. I have heard that America is an imperialistic menavce so many times I though we might as well give it a shot. Lets build an empire.
We're gonna have to whack Syria and Iran. Not if, when when. I'm saying it now so I can say "I told you so" later. I'm not above saying "I told you so."
Commenting by HaloScan
