Be nice!
Go ahead, they say in effect. Obliterate Israel. Wipe out the embarrassment in Iraq (and snub Bush in the eye while you're at it.) Bring back the Taliban and stone a few more widows in Afghanistan.
Seems like you are laying out the dire choice we face and, equally important, that there is little middle ground. The baby boomer Dems do seem quick to distract and be distracted, and do play a role in creating and suffering from the fatigue you describe. But I do not hear them favoring appeasement of Iran. By hammering them, and not laying out the aggressive course of military action that you seem to favor in all its glory, aren't you soft-peddling the daunting-if-necessary prospect of a world war?
The left hates Bush, and some of their reasons are IMO quite legit. To many, it's hard to tell who he is, and whether even he knows if he's coming or going. The left also favors diplomacy - also legit as a matter of principle - quaint as you seem to find such measures. This does not mean, however, that the left consents to Iran nuking Israel, or even to Iran going nuclear (the two seem frighteningly instinguishable). It's an easy accusation to level, but what you are pointing is not treason or suicidal tendencies, but political discord propagated by both sides in scrape after domestic political scrape.
I agree with your diagnosis: political anemia, most strongly in a Dem Party that has misspent much of its efforts since 9/11. But like too many commenters on the right, you can't resist placing the demise of the western world at the feet of the liberals, who have largely defined what that world has become, good and bad.
Good stuff as always. I was feeling like you, that this thing is really going down. My thoughts: It is about time. Iran has been blowing up our planes, murdering our diplomats and fiancing terror for 26 years. They will reap what they have sown---a real whirlwind. Keep up the great work!
Hitler lost the election? Sounds sort of like Gore won Florida. I'm sorry but your analysis is flawed. Exactly who is going to take out the Iranians? The Europeans won't and the US is beset with people whose knowledge or mindset is so biased that they can state "Hitler didn't win in 1933." Our educational system is so corrupt that people no longer have the knowledge necessary to see what the same circumstances yeilded in the past and how when faced with the same circumstances today what our opinions might be and what we should at all costs not do.
Civilizations do not usually die at the hand of outsidersthey die from corruption and moral rot. The Left is a cancer that has infected Western civilization and leaves it with no hope, no vision, no aspirations other than sex, drugs and rock and roll. What civilization can hope to progress with goals like these?
Hitler lost two elections. The first in 1932 with only 37.3% of the vote and again in 1933 garnering only 43.9% of the vote. He ascended to power via an Enabling Bill which gave him Dictatorial Power. In order for the bill to pass Hitler had to make a deal with the Catholic Center Party (BVP). This is how he became dictator...
I have to agree, however, with TJ's assertion that Civilizations die from Moral Rot. Throughout history this has been the case.
By the way, last time I checked Gore lost every recount. And he continues to lose every time he opens his mouth.
Secondly. There is no safe choice in regard to Iran. No matter what America does or doesn't do, she will get caught in the crossfire...
If israel takes out Irans Nuclear Capability, America will feel the brunt of retaliation because Israel is 'supported' by the US.
If the US takes out Iran's nuke program we'll be condemned and castigated by all of Islam and the world [to say nothing of Democrats], we'll paint a target on every American's back, and we'll suffer in kind when an enterprising Muslim Terrorist succeeds in getting past our guard, which, considering our sloppy border situation, is not so difficult to believe.
If we do nothing, we'll be viewed as weak, and destroyed at their first opportunity.
There is no safe choice. But what's best is... Diplomacy First, but only to, and not beyond, the point to which diplomacy becomes a threat to US and its citizens.
Why is it that people can't see the world is vastly different than it was a mere 5 years ago?
ELashley, what you say is right. It would be hard to take seriously oanyone for whom our inextricable choice is not obvious.
But this international reality, and America's domestic politics, are on largely different planes. Moral Rot, Corruption - hardly the exclusive province of the American left, witness the Republican political machine.
The mudslinging back and forth will compromise our ability to be decisive. The fault for this will be shared across the political spectrum and significantly by the Bush Administration.
> Something bad is going to happen. Soon. (My best guess: March.)
Hopefully, I'm wrong, but... can you say "Superbowl"?
> And he continues to lose every time he opens his mouth.
Considering he lost it long ago, that's befitting.
Look, I don't like this situation, but I do believe you underestimate the twin factors involved --
1) How long it will take Iran to go from where they are now to a functional weapon?
---a) Uhm, are they going to test it? That would certainly give substantial notice that action MUST be taken.
---b) How much longer after that before they have produced a deliverable weapon. That's not a simple question, it must have a certain size and stability for it to fit into a functioning missle.
---c) "There are no "suitcase nukes"
2) In that same time frame, what other things will happen which affect the situation? This is most emphatically NOT a minor question. Iran is very unstable with lots of problems, and its internal problems can be very much assisted (and likely are) by both ourselves as well as Israel and at least some of the smarter Intel groups out there (even non-Americans). If Syria falls, too, that will be a very significant event. Iran will then stand isolated in the Arab world within some limits, and that also frees us up to go after Iran more directly with regards to Iraq.
In other words, there is much to be done besides being highly fearful. I believe this is a problem of concern, but not one of anything remotely approaching desperation.
I've heard 3 scenarios: 1) they have 'em already (timeframe obvious), 2) they bought refined uranium from NoKo, Russia or elsewhere (then ~3 months to finish the job in the form of a weapon) and 3) they need these reactors to get some (in which case we're talking years).
I believe #2. There was certainly a black market for this stuff. They would not be boasting if they weren't close. You are correct that there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke (at least not now, at least not out of control). Missiles are our way of thinking about the delivery system - not theirs. They have 'drivers' willing to go in close. We don't.
I give no credence to the SuperBowl idea. Just my gut. Juicy target but they know that it will be heavily defended (not perfectly, just heavily enough to make other targets better.)
My guess: the container will soon be on its way to Syria via the Cape of Good Hope if its not already. Syria either trucks it over the border, flies it over Israel in a commercial 737 (oops, got out of flight path, sorry ground control, gimme a minute, I've got passengers on board... boom...) or floats a container ship up to the beach or the harbor at Tel Aviv.
The Superbowl as a target for a nuclear [or conventional] strike? That was a very good book... One of Tom Clancy's best.
But that's not to say these Young Jihadis haven't read Clancy as well. I wouldn't put anything past these maniacs.
The books title is certainly aproros in light of current events.
Commenting by HaloScan
