Say Anything Blog

Well, we just don’t have the troops to invade Iran.  The public would not support it.  Russian and China would likely send troops to defend them.  Yep, bad news.

Let Iran have nukes?  Well, that’s a difficult problem.  India and Pakistan have nukes and nobody would call those places stable.

It’s a difficult situation for us and Iran knows it.  With all their oil money, I am sure Iran could buy a nuke or two from Russia or China if they wanted.

Probably the best thing is to let them do what they want to do with the old Cold War idea that if you ever use them, we will blow your country back to the stone age.

However, we may not have to do anything at all as Israel may act unilaterally.  Actually, one could argue that having nukes actually makes a country more peaceful because they know the dire consequences of full-blown war.

The problem with Iran is the dreaming to build Persian empire again.

Isn’t al Quaeda working on taking over Pakistan at the moment?

Let’s just wait for Armageddon. Give it time, then nobody will be mad at us anymore.

I strongly agree with Ken on this. Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake on several levels, not the least of which Bill Mitchell points out above: Russia and China are deeply involved there. It would risk a global conflict and possibly even lead to nuclear comfrontation.

Theres another parallel here:

We’ve screwed up the way we dealt with Castro. I’ve long contended that if we had lifted the sanctions and poured the Yankee dollar into Cuba Castro would have fallen a long time ago and tin pot dictators like Chavez wouldn’t have come about. Money - and freedom - talks. Give the people a taste of both and they’ll take care of the rest themselves.

Our belligerant way of dealing with Cuba hasn’t worked. It won’t work with Iran, either. If we attack the Iranian people, who are already unhappy with the oppression of the mullahs, will rally behind the banner of Islam.

Ken hit the nail on the head.

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

There is a difference between invasion and a strike at potential nuclear facilities.  The truth is that Iran was in the midst of moderates until G.W. got involved. I read an interesting commentary on the Iran situation, while i may not agree with all the conclusions it gives an intersting insight in not only what to do about Iran, but what caused the problem in Iran.

http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/iran-—-the-next-great-threat-too-much-like-the-last/

It would be the polarization of the West versus Islam that Osama bin Laden has long been seeking. It could end the disunity in the Muslim world that thus far has worked to the West’s advantage.

This was one of the arguments against our going into Iraq.  It simply turned out not to be true.
In fact, a surgical strike against their nukes is pretty much inevitable, and we should be researching how to do it with maximum effectiveness.  Anyone who doesn’t think Iran intends to invade Iraq eventually is smoking something, and it ain’t tobacco.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

1. I think we can all agree that an invasion of Iran is out of the question, as would manned flights to bomb them as if they get any prisoners from our side, by the insistence of the weak sister Left we would fold up like a cheap tent.
2. My test is twofold: A) If they are killing our troops, we need to track and drop missiles on the bases and sources near and inside their border to discourage further attacks. However, with the war in Iraq increasingly appearing to be gaining the victory for our side and deaths of Americans and Iraqi’s declining in a big way, it would seem uproductive at this point to send missiles against Iran. B) They will represent a much greater threat to Israel if they get the bomb versus Pakistan or India, so we should support any attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear sites, including giving them bunker busting nuclear weapons if necessary.

I am weary of hearing how we will piss this country or that one off if we do this or that in our own defense. The decision should be made solely on the basis of whether or not they represent a real and present danger to our national security, which includes our economy as that threatens our national security. If the situation appears to represent such a threat, we should attack them with massive missile attacks on their nuclear and military sites and if necessary with nuclear weapons if we cannot stop them any other way. No screwing around and no half measures, if the threat is real then in defense of our country we must do whatever is necessary to end the matter quickly and decisively; or leave them alone and stop screwing around with nonsensical diplomatic efforts or economic sanctions.

So, while there are some serious merits to Ken’s arguments, I believe his prescription is far too simplistic. No attacks by the U.S. appear practical at this point, and even an attack by Israel needs better evidence of nuclear weapon development by Israeli intelligence, as our intelligence agenices suck at the job, and if that evidence appears overwhelming then we must support them behind the scenes with money, satellite data and weapons.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Destroying both the nukes and the army in Iran would free the Iranian people for self-determination.  It would also reduce casualties in Iraq and speed up the postwar effort there.  It’s a twofer.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I’m getting tired of hearing the same old “The Iranians hate the government and any day now will overthrow it!” song and dance. To the extent that the Iranian people have problems with Mr. Alphabet Soup, we are blowing it WAAAAAY out of proportion. Polls done suggest that the Iranians support the goal of the government to build nukes, DESPITE the fact that they know it’ll lead to sanctions. And let us not forget that the last time the Iranians excersized a little self-determination...the Ayatollah overthrew the pro-West Shah. The idea that Iran will just fix itself if we leave it alone is a fantasy. Iran has been ruled by rabid mullahs for over three decades, and I don’t see the evidence to suggest that the people have any desire for that to change...save to oust AlphabetSoup and replace him with someone just as bad.

And any idea that the Muslim world hinges on our actions is also silly...one only has to look at Kuwait, who suffered under the first Gulf War, condemning us for executing Saddam.

Polls done suggest that the Iranians support the goal of the government to build nukes, DESPITE the fact that they know it’ll lead to sanctions.

Why shouldn’t they support their government’s goal of nuclear weapons.  We support our government having nuclear weapons. 

And let us not forget that the last time the Iranians excersized a little self-determination...the Ayatollah overthrew the pro-West Shah.

You mean the brutal pro-west dictator?

Iran has one of youngest populations in the world.  If we made the slightest attempt this is something we could exploit.  But instead our leadership continues to threaten Iran pushing them towards radical leadership and nuclear weapons because that is the only way they feel safe. 

Of course if you read the Project for the New American Century, this is all part of the plan.

Kenny:  It is not Mr. Alphabet Soup, that is disrespeful, his name, in Arabic, I believe is properly pronounced “Iamabadhandjob”!

Lestat: Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavid dynasty, who established Twelver Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran at the beginning of the sixteenth century and the Shia Muslims of Iran today believe in the Seven Pillars of Islam, one of them being Jihad, the holy crusade to protect Islamic lands, beliefs, and institutions by force and murder. Therefore, Iran as a Shia Islamic state and people can never by any means be reconciled to the West; especially the perverse multi-religious United States or as they see us - The Great Satan. So, trying to play nice with Amabadhandjob and the ruling Mullahs or even the young Shia Muslim people of Iran will avail us nothing in my opinion!

Lastly, we must apply our own national security needs as the sole test of whether or not we attack Iran; because of their attacks on us, their support of terrorist acts against us, or because they are developing nuclear weapons that can be used against us or our key ally Israel. It is nonsense to speak about our dealing with them via diplomacy and/or economic sanctions. We should leave them alone until and unless striking them is in the best interests of our nation and then strike hard and with every weapon at our disposal until they cannot strike back and fellow Muslims will fear striking us.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Why shouldn’t they support their government’s goal of nuclear weapons. We support our government having nuclear weapons.

If Bush was talking about annihilating Canada with nukes, then the comparison would be valid. As he isn’t, we’ll write off that comparison as foolish and move on.

Furthermore, if the people are SOOOO anti-Alphabet guy, then surely they’ll oppose him in a project which is getting their country put under sanctions.
Yet, they’re not.

You mean the brutal pro-west dictator?

Oh please, the Shah didn’t hang guys for engaging in that “imaginary sodomy”. Sure he jailed dissidents, but they do that NOW too. Your claim falls flat.

Iran has one of youngest populations in the world.  If we made the slightest attempt this is something we could exploit.  But instead our leadership continues to threaten Iran pushing them towards radical leadership and nuclear weapons because that is the only way they feel safe.

The youngest Muslims tend to be THE most radical, which is why Muslim students were so over-represented in the last coup to replace the moderate Shah with the extreme Ayatollah. As such, they are likely to replace Mr. Alphabits with someone even worse. WE are not pushing Iran towards extremism. They accepted extremism long ago, and nukes are an extension of that.

Throwing out empty rhetoric is no substitute for real analysis. Nor is conspiracy theory nonsense.

Kenny,

Your understanding of Iranian government is lacking.  The President isn’t where the seat of power is.

The Iranians support radicals, because they are the ones who they believe will protect them from us.  If we stopped threatening them so much, there is a good chance other leaders would be chosen.

No, Lestat,
My understanding of Iran is pretty comprehensive. When the pro-US Shah was in power, they rioted against him. We turned a blind eye, and in fact, Carter put his hat behind Kholmeni. In return, the Iranians took our people hostage. For 30 years they have been supporting terrorist groups who are anti-US, even during the Carter days when we were as pro-jihad as we ever were.

That alone shoots down your nonsense about “it’s all our fault for hating them.”

If we stopped threatening them so much, there is a good chance other leaders would be chosen.

Neville Chamberlain couldn’t have said it any better.

You are correct that the presidency of Iran is not the seat of power.  But the mullahs who choose the president, and approve most if not all of the other government leaders, are all the more isolated and insular.  The notion that by being nice to Iran we will influence their choice of leadership and effect a lessening of belligerence is simple-minded wishful thinking at its most dangerous.

The question that should first be addressed regarding Iran is whether we are prepared to abandon our opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, and by extension the very idea of nuclear non-proliferation?  Iran is documented to have supported or sponsored all manner of Islamist terrorism, and has repeatedly voiced its goal of destroying Israel and the US.

If we are going to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nukes, then we should figure out how best to do so.  If not, then we should abandon all pretense of nuclear non-proliferation in the rest of the world, and simply make ourselves as comfortable as possible and wait for Armageddon.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

There needs to be regime change in Iran, and not just Ahmadinejad but rather the theocratic regime he’s the figurehead for.

But we’re just not in a place, military-wise or politically, where we can take such a task on.  We could, though, pull some serious economic levers to accomplish the same thing.

I honestly think that the Iranians are pushing for nuclear technology not so much because they want the weapons (though that’s why we can’t let them do it) but because they need the power.  Iran’s economy is based on oil, but unfortunately it’s not a free-market economy.  The government owns the oil and sells it to the world.  This has made them rich for now, but as their economy grows they’re having to burn more and more of their own oil to meet internal demand.  That means less to export, and less money coming in.

Since they don’t have coal, and things like wind and solar power just aren’t ready to be primary sources of energy, they need nuclear power or their economy is going to collapse.

Which is exactly why, in addition to the proliferation threat, we can’t let them have it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Another point, Rob. Iran can not refine sufficient amounts of gasoline and fuel oil/diesel to supply them selves. Next point, Iran’s neighbors know what they plan for the Arabian Sea region, and slavery does not even describe it. Our behind the scenes efforts to build a Muslim coalition to fight Iran are ongoing and our best long term strategy. Surgical strikes followed by Muslim forces on the ground are the solution to the Persian/mad mullahs quandary.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Nukes are WMDs.  They are genocidal.  They serve no useful purpose, except to terrorists.  The US should be following Reagan’s lead on this issue and should work towards eliminating them from every country’s arsenal, including our own.

The problem of nuke development in Iraq, Pakistan, and N. Korea is made dramatically worse by the fact that we live in a world where nuclear weapons are viewed as legitmate weapons and are seen as symbols of prestige and national pride.  Why?  Largely because of the US example.

Why? Largely because of the US example.

What is the US example?  We used nukes to end a very long, bloody and destructive war over 60 years ago, and have not used them since.  We hold them as a deterrent to attempts by totalitarians to enslave the peoples of the world, and to defend our way of life.
Iran’s lust for nuclear weapons has nothing to do with uor example.  They seek to start a violent and bloody war of conquest.  Big difference.

You couldn’t be more wrong.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

The problem of nuke development in Iraq, Pakistan, and N. Korea is made dramatically worse by the fact that we live in a world where nuclear weapons are viewed as legitmate weapons and are seen as symbols of prestige and national pride.  Why?  Largely because of the US example.

Will,

So, the United States is responsible for “the problem of nuclear development” by other countries?  Is this the same United States that sacrificed its men and its treasure to save the western world from enslavement by Nazi Germany, and the East from an even more horrific fate under the Imperial Japanese?  The same U.S that finally brought down the evil Soviet empire, and now provides the Chinese a way out from their Maoist communist path by offering a market for all manner of Chinese goods?  Is that the same United States you hold to account for the lust for destruction of other, more ruthless and less civilized nations?

What an irrational idiot you are!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

That should be ”our example”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Know what is really gonna make the leftards howl? When Musharaf and the Pakistani Parliament go ahead and use tactical nukes to clean out the strongholds of Taleban and Al Queda. 1 to 5 kiloton strikes are rather light on the fallout potential, and it is within their borders, so the international squealers can do nothing about it but squeal.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

We hold them as a deterrent to attempts by totalitarians to enslave the peoples of the world, and to defend our way of life.

Yes, our noble, glorious nuclear weapons, our pride and joy.

That’s exactly the kind of perverted thinking I’m talking about.  At this point, nuclear weapons do us more harm than good.  They are good for killing large numbers of civilians but not much else.

By glorifying our own nuclear weapons, we legitimize the nuclear aspirations of every other country.

Yes, our noble, glorious nuclear weapons, our pride and joy.

That’s exactly the kind of perverted thinking I’m talking about.

Your perverted thinking, not mine.  You made that statement up all by yourself.  You are the one who called nuclear weapons noble and glorious; most conservatives consider them a regrettable necessity; if it weren’t for totalitarian lefties, they wouldn’t be necessary.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

will, when you socialist morons quit trying to take over the world nukes will no longer be needed. When you going to stop?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Ken,

I beg to differ.  The military option is the least bad of the options.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”