Dean is calling for military actions. I disagree. The Mad Mullahs of Iran are mad enough to believe their own Islamic fundamentalist vision of the world. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reminds me a lot of Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was naive enough to actually believe in communism and Ahmadinejad seems to actually believe that Islam can perfect his society. In both cases reality could only be denied for so long. With enough time, the Iranian regime will fall just like the Soviet one did. No military action will be needed.
The only real question in my mind is how long it will take and if we can wait for Ahmadinejad to take off his mask and reveal himself in worship to an actual A-bomb, or just that Beneath the Planet of the Apes prop he bought on e-Bay?
1
Dean is right. Millions died because nobody had the balls to face down Hitler before it was too late. How many must die now, when we have such bloody lessons from history from which we seemingly refuse to learn? The only option that can succeed is the military one. We must invade Iran, destroy the military to the last man and piece of equipment, kill all the mullahs, and allow real elections. Any other options will fail without question.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:42 AM (0yYS2)
2
Additionally, just because this particular configuration of mullahs falls from power, it does not mean a new, more friendly Islamic regime is just going to pop up. And to be sure, it will be another Islamist regime. Ayatollah-Lite, maybe. Maybe more like Syria. You know, secular and safe. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Posted by: Bill Dautrive at January 17, 2006 11:47 AM (G95Uf)
3
First we have to settle an issue with China and Russia. both have big new oil contracts. So some assurance or compensation will have to be given to bring them along. However Iran needs the oil money just as bad if not worse than the world needs the oil. We can and should call Iran's bluff on that one. We can make it longer without Irans oil than Iran can go without the money. Call em on it it will be tought but not as tough as eating sand like they will have to. The oil money keeps Iran fed so if it dries up and Iran cannot support the welfare state it has going now hunger and unrest will develop thus making a revolution more likely. I doubt we will ever be in a better position to use force if we have to that we are now. We have em boxed in. So fi they feel they are in a good postion we can feel just as good about our position.
Posted by: Howie at January 17, 2006 11:57 AM (D3+20)
4
Military action in Iran, YES. Unilaterally, NO. We can write the muslim world off for sure. But we need Western Europe this time, and the damn Democrats. Bush doesn't have the political capital to go this one alone, period. Going it alone would do us more harm than good. Read VDH's take. It's as grim as it gets:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)
5
Carlos, there is no Western Europe anymore. In case you haven't heard, they're all getting fitted for man-dresses, and arranging to sell their daughters to subhuman muslim scum.
Posted by: Improboulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:16 PM (0yYS2)
6
Rusty, I hope you're right about this guy. The question is, is there some way to speed up the acceptance of reality?
Posted by: KG at January 17, 2006 12:27 PM (eRMCR)
7
IM,
you make an extremely valid point, even when you put it like that. I spoke with a Frenchman friend of a friend, and he essentially said that given France's large muslim minority, the French government's hands are essentially tied in matters of both internal and foreign policy. This is probably why the Left is so in love with massive muslim immigration to the West. There are no good choices left. It makes me sick to my stomach.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:28 PM (8e/V4)
8
It's true Carlos, it's sadly true. There are not enough men left in Europe to do anything about it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:50 PM (0yYS2)
9
Isn't "European men" and oxymoron?
Posted by: Rusty at January 17, 2006 01:05 PM (JQjhA)
10
Iran is not Iraq or NK - it is a whole nother ballgame. Shit might eventually go down - but for now - stay cool and frosty.
I'm no pussy - but I know this situation is a bitch with no easy solution.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:16 PM (3aakz)
11
With what army? Looks like dubya invaded the country that had been contained, but not the other. Billiant!
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 01:54 PM (CqheE)
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 01:57 PM (osKlJ)
13
actus,
it's called the AIR FORCE.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:58 PM (8e/V4)
14
"it's called the AIR FORCE."
that's going to cause regime change? woah.
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 02:17 PM (CqheE)
15
I imagine it would if we bombed an Iranian Presdential address to the Mullahs.
Posted by: Brass at January 17, 2006 02:26 PM (6TLEO)
16
>>>that's going to cause regime change?
woah is right. I was thinking air strikes on their nukes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 02:29 PM (8e/V4)
17
actus
Its a difficult situation. Does it give you comfort that a radical islamic nation with an actual populist following and a deeply held religious belief of the apocalypse being the beginning of a new order - may well shortly develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?
Granted - their means would be limited in scope and region - but is the real potential of a regional nuclear war appealing to you?
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:34 PM (3aakz)
18
It seems to me that the best course of action is the one we are taking. Get other nations involved quickly, get sanctions in place, keep a very strong military presence & possibly state that US policy will be any attacks using WMDs on Israel or any other Western ally will be considered an attack on the US & will prompt a direct proportional response. Possibly bomb their nuclear sites – the ones we know of at least - & hope that internally a regime change occurs. The best pressure would be to have 2 very successful representative forms of government thrive politically & economically on either side of Iran & thus show the Iranian people that their leaders do not have their best interests at heart & are actually more of a hindrance. Until Iraq & Afghanistan thrive on their own, & independent of the US, the extreme anti-western ideologues within Iran (& the Middle as a whole) will still have a voice that is considered valid & just. Show that Islamic countries can adopt a representative approach to governing & involve their own people & succeed & no religious dogma or zealot will be able to argue differently & be creditable.
The scary part is waiting for these changes to complete & the reality to settle into the Middle Eastern mind. That is why I believe that Iran is in such a hurry to develop the weapons now. Also a press leak saying the 2 or 3 nuclear subs w/ missiles are sitting off-shore of Iran wouldnÂ’t hurt. But the biggest asset we have is the fact we removed the largest, most aggressive Middle Eastern army, the Iraqi Army, in like 2 weeks & that Saddam was forced to hide out in a hole in the ground.
If the UN continues to drag its heels, then make it a NATO issue & involve our allies that way. IÂ’d say do both & try to hurt Iran economically as hard as possible without looking like that is what we are doing.
Posted by: PMain at January 17, 2006 02:35 PM (ImHPa)
19
This is not a regime that can be decapitated. Its built around a fanatically dedicated significant minority of believers - who curently have the support (sometimes tepid) of additional segments of Iranian society. Whatever opposition there is (and there is!) is currently isolated - but!!!... the opposition is not religiously motivated and more nationalistic! That is one dangerous combination!
The mullahs may end up wanting war and a means of national unity!
This is a tough one!
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:45 PM (3aakz)
20
"woah is right. I was thinking air strikes on their nukes."
Oh. then something other than regime change.
"Granted - their means would be limited in scope and region - but is the real potential of a regional nuclear war appealing to you?"
A bit less than the potential of a global nuclear war. And we got throught that one. We'll hang in there. But the bedwetters will wet the bed.
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 02:48 PM (CqheE)
21
If we invade Iran, U.S Soldiers will be beheaded on a daily basis. Iraq will like sunday school. Bush is already dealing with problems on Iraq.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 02:51 PM (5E0ex)
22
Futher complicating everything ... this is a fanatical Shia regime - and the Shia and Sunni have been involved in their own "lil' cold war" for 1300 years! - and it has at times been vicious and ruthless! Don't for a moment believe this concerns only the US, West and Isreal.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:52 PM (3aakz)
23
actus
The global one - never actually occured. I'm talking about the real thing here. You feel comfortable being a bystander - I can understand that - but you sure do have a very high threshold for acceptable risks. If I thought for a moment it could be "contained" with minimal impact on US (let alone the rest of the world), I would agree - but I don't believe.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:59 PM (3aakz)
24
I mean if we invade Iran, Iraq will look like Sunday School.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 03:00 PM (5E0ex)
25
That mutant guy looks like a memeber of PETA
Posted by: sandpiper at January 17, 2006 03:20 PM (U/q87)
26
I'm with you, Dean is jumping the gun. There are still some options that have not yet been explored. If the point of no return has not been hit, then there is still time, regardless of what the US Army War College has to say.
http://www.vitalperspective.com/thewestvsiranaminuteclosertomidnight.htm
Posted by: Ron Dahan at January 17, 2006 04:00 PM (+SJDp)
27
You obviously have not seen beneath the planet of the apes sandpiper. I love how Rusty puts in little tidbits from my favorite movies and tv shows.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 04:15 PM (5E0ex)
28
". You feel comfortable being a bystander - I can understand that - but you sure do have a very high threshold for acceptable risks."
What does it matter whether I accept it or not?
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 04:16 PM (CqheE)
29
There is a window of opportunity. If Iraq becomes a little more stabilized, and we begin moving our troops back to the US, then we will have a 1-2 year period to deal with the mad mullahs. What could be accomplished in that amount of time is hard to say, but another war on our own is out of the question.
The civilized world needs to get involved in this one, or it literally may be the end of the civilized world, and I'm not sure but that might be what these lunatics want. The ball is in the EU court, let's see what they do, remembering that we have a little time yet before we have to make a move. Granted, this will allow Iran to harden their nuclear facilities and hide much of what we seek, but it is a risk we will have to take.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 04:22 PM (rUyw4)
30
actus
Sorry - I never figured you as essentially into nihilism.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:30 PM (3aakz)
31
actus
Oh - one more think ...
If that's your general outlook on things, then why do you even bother blogging?
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:32 PM (3aakz)
32
"Sorry - I never figured you as essentially into nihilism."
With this administration it doesn't matter what level headed experts think, much less pinko homos like me.
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 04:35 PM (CqheE)
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 05:10 PM (3aakz)
34
One thing I will not do is waste time trying to explain military theory to an idiot liberal. They can't even understand basic free-market economics, so trying to explain something as subtle and complex as modern warfare to them is like describing astrophysics to a monkey, though with less chance of success.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 05:26 PM (0yYS2)
35
improbulus maximus
as an Iranian I want the Mullahs gone, they are killers and forced so many into exile, including me. I'm first an Iranian then a very liberal Muslim. Please do not say muslim scum!
Posted by: Maziar at January 18, 2006 10:37 AM (SVSLj)
36
I'm sorry Maziar, I only have an on/off switch most of the time, and I find moderation in matters of survival to be equivalent to cowardice, so while I will concede that there are many muslims who are good people, the fact remains that islam as an ideology is at war against the civilized world. Your own culture, the remnants of the great Persian empire, was destroyed by Islam, which wants to consume the world. I don't hate you personally, but if islam is allowed to expand unchecked, the whole world will be run by the mullahs.
See, I believe the Greeks had it right, and I believe in the ideas they conceived, which matured into the Enlightenment, which in some ways was the epitome of Western civilization. I believe Enlightenment principles are good for every person on the planet, and any ideology which seeks to destroy those principles must itself be destroyed. You doubtless know that as a liberal muslim, you are under an automatic sentence of death more as an apostate than I am as an infidel, so we both face the same enemy. The question is this; do we join to destroy what Winston Churchill called the most powerful retrograde force in the world, or do we stand by and allow the fanatical murderers to take over the world?
Islam is by its very nature an intolerant, extremist ideology, and any person who loves Liberty must admit that it cannot be reformed, it cannot be moderated, it must either be fought or submitted to. You either love freedom or you love slavery; there is no third option.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 18, 2006 11:28 AM (0yYS2)
37
Improbulus Maximus, many thanks for the reply. I cannot agree with you more on most things you have said. To be honest I'm not sure why the way the religion is or why the hard core followers are such beasts. Trust me, you have no idea what these people have do us Iranians. The Mullahs in our case, the only language they understand is violence, you can't reason with them. We persians like to believe its an arabic way, and we have this cult upon us. Majority of us Iranians inside and outside the country are against this way of thinking, killing. We are living in the west, for example Iranians are the second most succeful minority in Britan, after New Zealand. I don't mean this as showing off, but to show we are different.
Having said all the above, I cannot wait for these murderers with their backward thinking to leave us and move to a cave in Afghanistan. It is an extra shame for us with regards to our history, the persians, their tolerance, freeing the jews being under these animals.
I'm trying to think about the religion that is stamped on me. To look at Turkey and lebanon and their progress. Is it possible to reform or does it need violence, then I see Arabic countries, including the killers of Iraq, the insurgents who kill Iraqies.
Last part, I can't agree with you with regard to the greeks at least on persians
we were more civilised than they showed us..lol
Posted by: Maziar at January 19, 2006 02:34 PM (SVSLj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
