Redstate

discussing whether bombing the Iranian nuclear installations is a good or a workable idea.

I think we should be discussing bombing Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.  Cut off the head of the snake.

And OBTW, maybe Mr. President for Life Chavez will take notice.  Or maybe we could do the deed when he is in Tehran.

These "people" need to be killed before they ignite the world.  Is it a preemptive act of war on our part?  Sure is.  Do I care?  Nope.

but there is one point towards the end that I have to dispute:

But the presence of the aircraft carrier and its companions should make him think twice about his actions.

Nothing from Mr. Chavez's behavior to date gives my any confidence that your suggestion is accurate. What do we do when he ingores our aircraft carrier and continues with his behavior status quo? I am not optimistic about our options.

But overall, thanks for connecting the dots- I agree with everything you predict about the Iran-Venezuela relationship.

My thought was that the aircraft carrier would be in a position to intercept the transfer of anything bigger than a breadbox.  You're right about Chavez, but still, I'd rather have the Washington there than not.

I have been watching the developments in Iran for some time and I have speculated that we would need boots on the ground in order to shut down the Iranian nuclear program.

To my dismay, it seems that Washington is not listening to me (he says with tongue in cheek).

From what information I have been able to gather, and it's more rumors than information, we are going to try and do it from the air.

Many have speculated on why we are waiting, "What's the delay?"

I believe the delay is because we have not discovered the location of their parallel nuclear program yet, or at least we haven't published it yet in the NTY. Perhaps next week, but not right now. I spoke of Iran's parallel nuclear program on Tuesday.

The fleet is still in port, but the planes are on the runway.

AE is correct in pointing out the Ahmadinejad's new friends to our south, Chavez and Cindy. To Ahmadinejad, they are just a tool to use in the Global Jihad to cleanse the world of Infidels.

If he gave a nuke to Chavez, he (Ahmadinejad) would nuke Venezuela right after Hugo nuked us (right!).

Karl Rove says Ahmadinejad isn't a rational man, as he spoke to a group of Houston businessmen, just today.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to take a huge step in defeating terror. I give you war, as I have said before, the cost of which will be far cheaper then the cost of no action.

According to Chavez's recent American celebrity guests, "millions of the American people ... support your revolution."

From:

Belafonte Says Bush Is 'Greatest Terrorist in the World,' Praises Venezuelan Dictator

Sunday, January 08, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181030,00.html  

excerpts:

CARACAS, Venezuela -- The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.

[...]

Belafonte accused U.S. news media of falsely painting Chavez as a "dictator," when in fact, he said, there is democracy and citizens are "optimistic about their future."

[...]

Belafonte suggested setting up a youth exchange for Venezuelans and Americans. He finished by shouting in Spanish: "Viva la revolucion!"

The list of Chavez apologists is long and undistinguished, and includes far too many members of congress (both houses, both parties).

AE to a point. We are not going to bomb Chavez, and a carrier group, while impressive, is hardly a massive build up as the article you linked implies.

If the Fleet sails from Portsmouth, Jacksonville and San Diego, then you would see a massive build up of military presence.

However, having said that, I wouldn't want the George in my back yard, it would scare me right out of the neighborhood!

great story.

I think we should be discussing bombing Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.  Cut off the head of the snake.

If we do bomb Iranian assets, I don't see the downside of going directly after the Mullahs as long as we succeed (not like Libya).  We'll get demonized no matter what we do short of doing nothing.

I give you war, as I have said before, the cost of which will be far cheaper then the cost of no action.

Not if it's done only half way as seems to be our tendency since Vietnam.  It's better to do nothing than leave a job unfinished.

this will not be a half-way war. Before all is said and done, there will be boots on the ground.

Oh I agree Gordon--this isn't a massive build-up--it's a message in a bottle as it were, and could of course serve as the cornerstone of a larger force if one were needed.  Also, the wargames will establish a familiarity with the area and the opportunity to develop plans for the future.

We seem to be hurtling toward a world in which every regime that wants to can have access to a sub rosa nuclear capability. With Iran openly declaring its ambitions and only 1.5 nations in the world (Israel fully and the US half-heartedly) opposing those ambitions, Chavez and people like him will soon have a credible ability to use nuclear blackmail. Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer, and a world full of states that can threaten their use strongly degrades, practically neutralizes America's power to influence world events. It's just the Wild West towns from the movies, where everyone is packing heat. Everyone walks around on eggshells until, inevitably, someone draws.

go after the Mullahs first.  Make sure we get them and see what happens.

I don't think there's much the Iranians can do to improve their air defense over a several day period between the time we snuff the Mullahs and making a decision to widen the effort to the nuclear facilities.

I think there is a fair chance that killing the Mullahs will cause a secular take over of the government.  And, I don't think we lose much in the process, plus we get the benefit of a bunch of dead Mullahs.  A good thing.

for war.

War with whom exactly? Every nation that ever desires nuclear capability?

if we make the point in Iran that we will not allow pinheads to have nukes, fewer pinheads will try and get them.  That's why the first thing we should do is kill the Mullahs, lock stock and barrel.

And, BTW, if the NK's give nuke technology to Chavez, I have no problem killing him too.

is it that you teach, military tactics? (I know you won't tell us, we have to keep those students of yours in the dark about your other passion) You are so often right on the money with regard the intentions of the military.

I was referring to the article, in which the author said there was a massive military build up in the Caribbean.

As for your assertion of --message in a bottle-- geez, dat's no message, that's a nightmare!

if we make the point in Iran that we will not allow pinheads to have nukes, fewer pinheads will try and get them.

What about countries that desire nuclear capability for domestic purposes? Do we also attack them?

And, BTW, if the NK's give nuke technology to Chavez, I have no problem killing him too.

Fantastic, we can serve as a proxy army for North Korea. I'll see you at boot camp.

every nation, just most. There are some now that I wish didn't have a nuke, like China, NK and South Africa.

BTW, if the Saudis keep going with the track they are on, we will have on heck of a decision to make.

have to agree to disagree with this line of reasoning you are taking.

that can be accomplished easily.  Nuclear fuel supplied by [us] and reclaimed by [us].  The proposal that was offered the Iranians by the Russians (who I don't particularly trust) that they rejected out of hand.

Civilian use is relatively easily controlled with appropriate monitoring.  Monitoring, BTW, backed by a BIG hammer not by the UN.

chavez, castro, etc.

The real question for me is how much china and russia are playing around behind the scenes in this.

Interestingly, Russian relations with Chavez have cooled recently because they tried to pawn off rehabed, rather than new, machine guns on him.  He took umbrage.  But he's very, very chummy with China, which is helping him out with his new satellite scheme.

Civilian use is relatively easily controlled with appropriate monitoring.  Monitoring, BTW, backed by a BIG hammer not by the UN.

It's easily controlled now. What about 10 years down the road at the rate technology is advancing? The government has a heck of a time keeping up with the current changes, and they're only moving faster. All of the solutions I've seen presented are nothing more than short-term.

And point #2 wasn't addressed. Just curious about that one.

Recently, I made comments about Hugo Chavez to the effect that his bluster was little more than whacko talk.  In fact, I dismissed Whacky Chavez as a local strongman with an axe to grind who decided in the socialist tradition that the United States of America was the main enemy.  While not necessarily someone you'd want to waste your time on, he still deserves some scrutiny for his location atop some valuable oil resources and along the routes of what I'll call the Cocaine Road.  So far, he and his ideological brothers stand to benefit from the foolish behavior among some of our fellow citizens on the latter.

However, it isn't such a laughing matter when the Whacky One loudly announces plans for an alliance with that other crackpot, Amhadinejehad of Iran.  It's natural to presume that this'll include sharing nuclear technology and the potential to build an atomic bomb with which to intimidate his neighbors into converting to his "Bolivarian" Marxism.  Not to mention the potential for Whacky Chavez to someday have an agent (one of his or someone from an ally like Cuba, Iran or any number of associated terrorist groups) smuggle a live nuke over our border to wipe out a target city just for kicks, perhaps being so emboldened by the inability of our own politicians to develop a sense that what he may intend is their own demise before his.

For now, Chavez is the bully on the block.  We're the blind old man whose neighbors haven't been so helpful in dealing with said bully, and there's a real likelihood that the bully will eventually join a nuclear "Mafia" with the means to rob the old man penniless.

...because as long as the fuel is uranium, it can't be used to make weapons. And it's a big, highly visible stretch from 3.5% enriched uranium suitable for fuel rods to 90% for a Hiroshima-type bomb.

I'm not really worried about "dirty bombs" packed with fission products from civilian reactors. They have nowhere near the blackmail potential of the real thing.

As far as who we make war on (if it should come to that), Iran is really the only target. They are the only ones who are openly pursuing the development of nuclear fuel on a large scale. And they anchor a global terror network that is able and (presumably) willing to deliver bomb parts anywhere in the world. Once you have enough 90%-enriched uranium, it's not a big stretch to make a real bomb. This simple fact is enough to plunge the world into a balance of terror in which American conventional capability is neutralized by a credible nuclear threat held by many different hands.

I've often envisioned a blackmail scenario involving China. (China takes Taiwan. US complains loudly and mobilizes for war. China proposes a trade: Shanghai for Los Angeles. US folds.) But the possibilities for trouble in a world where multiple Chavez types can make a similar threat is mind-boggling.

Almost everything I've seen is a short-term solution for a long-term problem. 10 years down the road it will be much easier to create, develop, and produce nuclear-based technologies. What then? We attack the world?

Okay, I'll bite.  What do you propose?

We will need boots on the ground in Iran, there is no real alternative. But, unlike Iraq my inclination would be to put the troops in only long enough to clean house.

Use air strikes to destroy their air defenses, Air Force, Army and Navy and as many of their nuclear facilities as possible. Then put troops in to

• destroy anything that even looks like a nuclear, chemical or biological activity;
  
• anything that even looks like the Iranian Army, Navy or Air Force;
  
• put the oil facilities under cordon and tell the UNSC (a) do something about it and (b) they have 90 days --- if they don't act to our satisfaction we're seizing the fields and staying there forever.

Then pull out and let the Iranians figure out their future.

Sigh...dropping American bombs on their heads will not make the sane people of Iran love us, it will only increase the power of the militant mullahs.  They have placed key parts of their nuclear and war-making infrastructure in residential areas.

Any American air strike will kill many Iranian innocent people, and give the hard-liners another way to rally anti-American sentiment, and support for terrorist acts.  Most of the people in Iran are really like most people anywhere; they just want to get by, and live their lives.

I don't have an easy answer for our middle-eastern relations.  Like most things in real life, real people are complex; slogans and bumper-sticker politics are not the whole story.  If we just shout out 'kill our enemies!', and proceed to do so, our enemies will do the same.  We cannot just kill anyone we feel threatened by, or disagree with!

Do you know about some new physics or technology? What will be different in 10 years?

I note you mentioned South Africa. I for one don't for a minute believe that they have actually foresworn their program. The fact that the bubbleheads at IAEA says they have goes along way to that opinion.

Their not-so-clean hands are all over this stuff.

...honestly. I can't think of any military-based solution that will solve the problems we will eventually encounter, especially without any massive retaliation for said military solution. At the rate technology is advancing, 10 years is 10 lifetimes. Take a look at how the proliferation of basic information has changed just in the last 5 years alone.

I'm at a loss.

Russia and China have everything in the world to gain from a removal of the US from the role of global enforcer, and practically no risk.

Just kidding ;). However, I will say that it's a safe assumption there will be huge nuclear advances in the near future, especially when compared to the rate that everything else is moving.

If you want a nuclear bomb, you still have to coax those tiny little atoms to get together in a club without too many of those slightly heavier ones. That takes a huge amount of time and electrical power. I'm not aware of any technical or scientific innovations on the horizon that can shorten the process. But in any case Iran has committed to enriching fuel on an industrial scale, and they can supply it to anyone they decide to. (And that will make them, if you'll pardon the image, the prettiest girl at the dance.) The real problem is not technical. It's keeping the Iranians from making the fuel in the first place.

True enough, but we cannot know what these advances will be or who will control them, and I don't think it's viable to simply throw up our hands and conclude that because we don't know what the future holds we should not take action now.

The real fact is, when you get down to it, we are worried about these countries 'maybe' getting the 'nuke?  So what?!

America has these weapons, thousands of them, better ,stronger, more accurate, and more deadly than any other country in the world; and, we are the only country in the world that has used nukes against another country-Twice!

We can totally wipe out, with 'nukes, ANYONE who dares to really oppose us.  The rest of the world knows this, and they are scared.  They try to get a few pissy little 'nukes, in the hope we won't bomb them 'till they glow, for fear of retaliation.  I know I am being simple, world relations are a bit more than this, and we can be hurt bad...but still, anyone, anywhere in the world right now fears us, and with good reason.

If anyone ever dares to use something serious against America, nuke or bio or what have you, they will be wiped off the face off the earth, and they know it!  Don't talk about 9-11, in terms of a REAL war, that is nothing.  Sorry, not to diminish the loss, but any true war historians here know what I am saying...

In a BIG bottle that happens to be armed to the teeth.

And to most Americans, an entire Battle Group IS a "massive naval buildup."

Infotech is moving at an extraordinary rate, but basic physics isn't moving that fast. Unless you're thinking someone will find an easy way to make a thermonuclear (still need fission to light the match) or antimatter or di-lithium crystals or something.

As far as a society-busting infotech-bomb, China and India are all over that now.

a lot of power.

Iran is a two tiered state.  Mullahs and people.  If you kill the Mullahs the people will take back their country.

Iran should not have nukes, and neither should Venezuela, however it's a bit silly to think that Venezuela would be able to blackmail people into becoming communist.  Blackmailing people with nukes doesn't work if there's another nuclear power sitting around that will nuke you if you launch.  So long as the US is willing to push the button, Iran and Venezuela won't be able to blackmail anyone.

issue.  One more point, we can put full time people in place to monitor the uranium if necessary.

With respect to your second point, I completely don't understand it.  If your point is that the NK's want Chavez dead, I don't see it.

My point is that I really don't care much about what the NK's think and only slightly more about what they do.  Chavez is a potential threat in this hemisphere.  If he gets his hands on the ability to process uranium and the technology to make a nuke, I would absolutely make him dead.

Too bad we don't have Mullah-guided bombs, that will find and kill all the bad guys.  It's easy to say 'kill the leaders', much harder to do, in the real world.

Iran is building an export-industry to do it for him (and everyone else). Give 60 pounds of 90%-enriched uranium to anyone who knows how to make a cannon and you can re-do Hiroshima.

isn't even up to apples and oranges.  The technology to make even a Hiroshima grade weapon (essentially a firecracker v. current weapons) hasn't changed all that much in the last 15 to 20 years and isn't likely to change much in the next 15 to 20.

The problem is a rogue state that has the ability to manufacture the stuff that goes boom and will happily sell it or give it to whoever wants it.

I'm reminded of something that happened in the Falklands War. The British used just about every significant asset they had available; they sent a Harrier-equipped carrier, some frigates and destroyers, several submarines, etc. And they were clearly stretched to the limit to support the operation.

In the course of all of this one of our TV news operations had a program discussing the war and they interviewed some folks from a Canadian military think tank. The clever American news type says something to the effect that such an operation would be difficult for anyone including the US. The Canadian responded by saying he was often amazed at how little Americans understood their own power. Paraphrasing, he said that 'if Argentina had done this to you, you would have sent a carrier battle group and it would be over by supper. If you were really upset you'd send two battle groups and it would be over by lunch.'

so have you rehearsed your speech? You know, the speech where you talk to the family and friends, and to the dead, of the city that gets incinerated by a nuclear device supplied to an Islamist whackjob by some 12th imam nutcase like AmaDinnerJacket? The speech where you explain that we knew that had these things and they might do this, but what the H*ll, we decided that they were too afraid of us to do anything.

You might make a note in your calendar: Hope is not a strategy. And while prayer is a good thing, there are times when it is not a substitute for an aircraft carrier or a battalion of infantry.

We sould be more worried about oil, than nukes.  The only reason Hugo C. gets a mention here is because he has oil; who cares about how 'bad' he is, he must give us the oil!  America really does not care about what some idiot somewhere thinks about politics or philosphy; don't get in the way of American oil/business or we will take you out!  I'm not just being cynical.  If you have really taken a careful look at our economy in the past 50+ years, you know where I am coming from.

OIL=Irag, OIL=Iran, OIL=Venezuala, OIL=russia, etc.

Again, this is a bit simple, but needed resources are at the base of any nations economy, and gets down to matters of life and death...look up your Roman history, from almost 2000 yrs ago.

And what're you gonna say when we invade Iran to stop them from getting nukes, and we're bogged down in another pointless, bloody conflict because you were high on fear?  "Ooops?"

The fact is that believing that Iran will be pushing the button the second they get a nuke requires an absurd leap of faith.  Decisions aren't supposed to be made on a "what if" basis, especially if all you have are ridiculous scenarios.

I strongly disagree--Hugo Chavez could menace Colombia with a small tactical nuclear weapon and bet, probably correctly, that we would not take substantial action against him.  He could collude with Castro to deploy nukes 90 miles off our shores.  He could offer to share nuclear technology with non-nuclear "fence sitters" if they join his vision of the Bolivarian socialist state.

Much easier to prevent him from getting nukes in the first place.  Maybe 'much easier' is the wrong phrase--maybe 'less bone-crushingly difficult' than trying to contain him after he's got them.

that the western mind refuses to believe despots and tyrants when the say what they are going to do. Instead of believing them we start with the belief that they can't actually mean what they say, they're just blustering. So we rationalize it, we negotiate we talk about it and we convince ourselves that they are actually rational. And then we end up having to go to war because they were telling us the truth to start with.

I know its oh so trite, but it has the advantage of still being true

Those Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana

We have several centuries of history to look back at.  Usually when despots bluster, they require some upper-hand to back it up.  Iran does not have the upper hand on anyone now and still won't after having nukes.  At best they'll just be even with Israel (and that'll take years at the minimum to really achieve parity).  But they know that by the time they send one nuke over the horizon at Israel, they can expect at least 10 coming back in short order and there won't be an inch of Iran that won't be cleared exclusively for cockroach habitation for the next 1000 years.

Do you honestly think that Iran will start lobbing nukes the moment they get them?  Keep in mind that Pakistan and India had even greater reason to drop bombs on each other than Israel/Iran and neither side has done so.  Also keep in mind that such insane behavior has never been witnessed in the past century, ever.

... people with nukes doesn't work if there's another nuclear power sitting around that will nuke you if you launch

This only works if people actually believe that 'the other nuclear power' has the will to act. The left in this country is doing a d*mn fine job of convincing people that we don't. That's one reason why nutcases like AmaDinnerJacket can hold a public event to celebrate enriching uranium.

PS and could I suggest that people stop talking about 'nukes.' It is far too casual a word for such a weapon.

------------------------

In which Venezuela threatens Colombia, or any other neighbor for that matter.  How would the exchange go?

VNZ: Colombia, you better do what we say or we'll drop a nuclear bomb on you!

CMB: Uh oh!  We better capitulate!

I don't think it'll be that easy.  Instead, I imagine Colombia at least alerting the UN to this kind of threat, and then I imagine Venezuela backing down when we send a carrier off their coast.

Nukes are useless as a threat if there is no possibility of their being used.  For Venezuela to threaten anyone, there has to be a situation in which they know they can use a nuke with impunity.  I guarantee you that such a situation will not arise because everyone in the region knows that if they throw a nuke they'll expect, at the very least, crippling sanctions and military measures, if not a retaliatory strike by the US.  I don't see Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter, getting away with it.

The US isn't appreciated nowadays because it's a bully.  I don't see other countries getting loved for being bullies themselves, especially by using nukes as their threats, which would simply go beyond the pale.

the other countries of the world take our nuclear arsenal lightly.  Many of those same liberals were shut right up on 9/11 and the aftermath, if someone drops a nuke there won't be a peep of dissent when it comes time for our response.  You're banking on Iran, Venezuela, et al. on taking a maximum risk, minimum reward calculation.  I'm not taking that bet.

But here is the vital issue: they will give them to people who tend towards, in your words "insane behavior."  Do you think OBL would NOT have used a nuke on 9/11 if he had had one because such behavior was "insane"?

And why will they do this?  Because then their dirty work will be done for them.

We forget that the ultimate enemy we face here does not play by the rules that even rogue nations such as Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, who do after all have territory to protect, at our peril.

Neighbor, this is a Republican website.  Military history is a hobby for us.  We know what a 'bloody, pointless conflict' actually looks like: it closely resembles the Crimean War or World War One or the First Afghan War.  Or the Taipeng Rebellion or the Third Crusade or Iran/Iraq or the Russian Civil War or the Reconquista or... do I really need to go on?

Shoot, we have quite a ways to go before we get to even War of 1812 levels of pointlessness and Korean War levels of bloodshed.

That invading a country because it is dangerously close to getting WMDs and because it collaborates with terrorists, only to find that it was miles away from either, pretty pointless.

Not to repeat myself, but you assume it will be Iran/Venezuela, not al Qaeda or Hamas, doing the launching.

If they wanted maximum reward and minimum risk, they would say they have seen the light and try to become friendly with us. Taunting and threatening us day in and day out is not the logical position.

Iran does not do what is in its best interest. The same can also be said about NK. They are broken and unpredictable countries that will do crazy things for reasons we won't understand.

Why would Hamas use a nuke?

As for AQ, I'm sure some low-level psychopaths would love to get their hands on some nuclear material.  Only problem is that deploying such a device here is next to impossible.

I'm also sure Iran is itching to give terrorists it has no control over nukes, just so the international community can blame them anyway when one is set off in a major city.

Pakistan and India are not governed by people who believe that the 12th imam "lives" in a well outside Tehran.

Israel, Pakistan and India are not governed by people who believe that the 12th imam is coming back to take his place as the Mahdi and cannot do so until

... the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest."

Also keep in mind that such insane behavior has never been witnessed in the past century, ever.

Well, I suppose it might not meet the classic definition of insane, but the Nazi invasion of Russia, or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor do not strike me as the actions of people fully in possession of their senses. And if you view the Japanese attack as a rational act, it is further evidence that people do things when they are convinced that 'the other guy' does not have the will, the stomach for war. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

There's a difference between a country having horrible management and being flat-out insane.  Kim-Jong is eccentric, but he still knows what death is which is why he confines his damage to his own country.  There's even less reason to believe that Iran would do anything foolish with nukes regardless of what it does to its own people.

What Hitler did vis-a-vis Russia was stupid.  His reasoning for thinking it would work was based on his faulty reasoning, not on some belief that Germany would be able to shrug off any counter-attack because Germans are invincible and don't require things like food or clothing or fuel in order to survive.  Same goes for the Japanese, whose action I think was more attributable to desperation and stubborness than insanity.

I also don't think Ahmadinejad is even 10% serious about his flighty rhetoric.  Power-hungry and prickish?  You bet.  Crazy?  He's not as good a liar he wishes he was.

and if I knew last Saturday's lottery numbers on that Friday I'd have bought the %$#%$#%# ticket.

The left is terrific in the 'if I knew then what I know now' department, practically every Democrat that voted for the Iraq War resolution has invoked that bit of intellectual frippery. And I see it is alive and well.

...ever actually loom on the horizon we'll be sure to keep your opinions in mind.

Moe

PS: Oh, almost forgot.  You now get to explain why 'Saddam Hussein subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers' does not equal 'collaborates with terrorists' (there's been all sorts of interesting evidence wrt al-Queda, but you give off that denial vibe) - I'd recommend an immediate backtrack and retraction, but that's just me.

a) != setting up suicide bombers.

and

b) is not worth a full-scale invasion in retaliation.

I'd recommend you stop trying to morph reality to fit your worldview and engage in more rational behavior, but that's just me.

no, not the UN! No, please not a strongly worded resolution! No, not crippling sanctions!

Why does the left believe that the UN actually means anything? I can see the US ignoring them, we've got more power in the Astabula, Ohio PD than the entire UN. But no one pays attention when they speak. And the reason is they can't make it stick. The UN disgorged a continuing series of resolutions, each one more strongly worded than the last, at Iraq and he ignored every d*mn one of them. Despots and tyrants understand power, not resolutions.

Come on guys.  Stop feeding this troll already.

Remember, he thinks the US is just a big bully.  Why waste your energy disputing his drivel?

The UN is weak because the US lets it languish.  Now that we are divorced from them, we both suffer.  The UN now has no muscle and the US now has no credibility.

You notice that none of our enemies overseas are listening to us when we threaten them directly, right?

Wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to cut some nice fat checks for the French, Russian, and UN crooks who would profit from them anyway, rather than go through with the whole charade?

The UN has credibility now? You should really do stand up.

But that's OK: there are plenty of sites out there that will sympathize with your being tossed off of this one.  Really, your night is looking up...

Blam.

...one of the lamest "Goodbye Cruel World!" comments.  Ever.

holds a gun to your head it is a pointless exercise to try to guess the calibre of the weapon.

It doesn't make any difference if you think AmaDinnerJacket is serious about his 'flighty rhetoric', it only matters what he thinks. And he is by the way, which you would know if you did any reading on his recent actions with respect to the 12th imam.

.

don't you remember? You are supposed to say "Clean up on aisle 7!!  

That is in MY rule book...so I can follow with jar ready to smash in aisle 9!!

...sheesh, everything has to be now, now, now these days.  :)

Moe sent him to the Pile already.

Thanks be to Moe!  (h/t c17wife)

...the next time I reveal my flashy, Blue-State RiNO ways, that's all I'm saying.

Morph his comment to fit my worldview to agree with that.

well, actually he did think the German army was invincible facing the Russians. There is no evidence that they ever seriously considered the possibility of a Russian counterattack let alone defeat. Their 'plan' was based on driving so fact that it would be long over before food and clothing became a problem. Try to remember that he, and many in the Nazi movement, thought that people in the east, Poles, Russians, etc., were sub-human. They were certainly no match for the German war machine. That is not a sane, rational view of your enemy.

There were a number of decenting voices in the Japanese high command, including Admiral Hirohito the man who planned and conducted the attack, who counselled against the attack. Hirohito certainly argued that Japan could not ultimately resist the industrial might of the United States. To proceed in the face of the best advise may not be insane but it does not reflect a firm grip on reality.

its just such an easy trap to fall into. It starts out so simple and before you know it you are up to your armpits in troll 'stuff.'

here I am composing a reply and Moe is behind the door dropping him down the trapdoor.

of course, I have no idea why I said Hirohito. Just typing along and out comes a grade a goof. We really need editing, or some software that knows what you meant to say ;-)

J-man, nor I. Absolutely no one is looking in that direction and they could have built an ICBM by now with mulitple war head capability and no one would have noticed.

What do you do with a half finished nuke program, put it in the garage with all the other junk?

Nope, you keep it nice and shinny and take it out and look at it when you're alone.

or somebody must, take out Iran's ability to do just that.

I'm not that selective.  These guys meet together.  Unfortunately there are other people around who will die too.

I guess you really showed me what is what.

I don't believe in murder.  I am human, not an animal.

I'm sad/sickened/angry that you think murder is ok.

are in the process of acquiring nuclear technology and who will use it, same heads of State who control worldwide terror networks that have killed thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people.

The Iranian Mullahs are central figures in the GWOT.  And make no mistake, we are at war NOW.  Would I kill a thousand people who are support players with these guys to keep a nuke from going off in Tel Aviv?  In a heartbeat.  Would I do it to keep Iran from acquiring the technology so they could spread it to the terror organizations they now finance?  Same heartbeat.

I would sleep very, very well.  Killing the head of the monster in a war is not murder.  I saddened that you do not seem to understand that we are at war.

And I remember Sally.  Don't go there...

a complete idiot.  But it's pointless because I don't think you can hear over the sound of the trash masher.

to make sure that any sanctions program from now on lasts FOREVER.  That way they get their cut, kinda like the kids who are looking for those great French jobs.

The left loves to pontificate about how we can't 'stoop' to the level of the bad guys, how we must behave with great dignity because 'we are better than they are.' We can't just hunt them down and kill them, we have to bring them to court and give them all the benefits of our system of law.

The other day I found an interesting paper by Ralph Peters called When Devils Walk The Earth for the military's Center For Emerging Threats and Opportunities. He addressed a number of factors and one of them had to do with this concept of 'we can't do those kinds of things, we are better than they are'. Rather than expect you to read the entire tome to find this gem, here it is

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

You will no doubt not agree, and continue to believe that if we engage the enemy with maximum ferocity our society will be irreparably damaged by our brutal behavior and lack of care and concern for the enemy. But, you will still be wrong.

that may well be their only source of foreign exchange.

Wow.  Good posts here tonight, despite the trolls.

I seldom post here or anywhere else, so much thanks to everyone here for keeping up a good topic.

My main fear, when it comes to nukes, is that we will start tossing them around to the point that the people left alive will not be able to grow any food, or have water to drink.  Call me crazy, but I grew up during the cold war...

America invented the Big One 60 yrs ago.  The other countries that could, did as well.  Now the little guys are starting to catch up.  We are dancing around what this is really leading to; if we don't want anyone else to get The Bomb, if we really want to control who uses The Bomb, America must eventually defeat or take over ANYONE in the world who has that potential.  The fact is, in the long run, America must rule the world, if we ever want America to be safe from total destruction.

I know this sounds crazy.  I will be accused of various things.  Yet, if you take the long view, even looking just 50 yrs down the road, what choice do we have?  Is this really such a bad thing?

The problem, bozo, is that it's not a bet.

A bet is when you think you can beat me at 8 ball.  You put up $20 and we play.  When you're out of money, you go home tell your significant other you were mugged.  You were wrong in your estimation that you play better 8 ball than I.  You are broke till next payday and your SO will be really, really ticked off if he/she discovers you really got hustled and then you lied to him/her.  Worst case scenario for you:  find a new place to live and a new squeeze.

In this particular case, if your judgement is wrong several hundred thousand people are going to be incinerated.  You need to refine your decision making process just a tad because the penalty for being wrong is more than a couple of weeks pay and finding new domicile.

BTW, if your decision making process really works like this, I live in Phoenix.  Drop around some time with money.  Cash only, large bills.  You won't need much in the way of time here in the Valley of the Sun.  Just make sure you have your bus ticket home in your pocket when you show up.

The UN was intentionally designed not to have any power. The lack of authority is be design not neglect.

Too many people were responding to him on too many threads.  I'll try to do better next time.  :)

would be to stop using the word "nukes." People toss that word around far to glibly. It is far too casual a way to refer to a weapon of such great power. But that's just me.

We are terrible at empire. Contrary to what the leftist think, it is not something that we seek or are very good at when we have been forced into it.

That being said I have seen a significant part of the world, lived and worked with a great many of the world's peoples. Given the way they live today, they could do far worse than a Pax Americana.

by Robert A. Heinlein, temp. December 1940! is helpfully provided by Baen Books. It's well worth reading for people thinking about this question.

I don't doubt this.  If I could, I would not hesitate to take my shotgun to town on the crazy mullahs and any other so-called leaders who want to kill me and my family.  The point I was trying to make is, it is not that simple.  There is not a big target in Iran that says 'bomb here, and kill all the bad guys'.  Yes, the American armed forces are the best in the world.  Yes, the Air Force can take out our enemies with more precision than any other in the world; I am in awe of what the USA military can do these days!

But, it is just not that simple!  When you make war, people get hurt!  Not just the bad guys.  If we really go after the government of Iran, in any kind of major, meaningful way, many civilians will die.  In fact, from what I have read and seen of a real war, the little people get hurt worse than the bad guys do.  I'm not saying taking out Iran is a bad thing, you just must realize that it is not going to be as neat or easy as you seem to think.

"many civilians will die"

Oh, you mean like the 3,000 plus or minus the 100 or so military members at the pentagon?

Sorry, my concern for collateral damage in the Middle East became non-existent at about 10:00AM CST on September 11, 2001.

I, too, am a R.A.H fan.

about the people who will be killed or injured in any kind of military action. It is not something to be taken lightly, but once undertaken it must be done with all deliberate speed and force.

Then we need to get good at it.  H**l with the leftists.  Rome was an empire, and it lasted longer than America has so far.  Look at what the romans did!  We need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and move on.  The future of the greatest country on earth, the USA, is at risk right now.  The future belongs to those who dream big, and dare to put those dreams into action!

We should just call them weapons.  Like any other weapon; rock, spear, bow, firearm, etc.

They are a tool of war.  We should not be shy about that.

I understand the Pope once banned the crossbow, as he felt this was a weapon too terrible to use...

it is also worth looking at how Rome was successful and why they eventually were brought down.

In the prime years (centuries) of the Empire they dealt with their enemies ruthlessly. Recall that Rome did not just defeat Carthage, they removed it from the face of the Earth. During the salad days of the empire they treated all their enemies the same way; screw with Rome and die. Rome survived and propered because their enemies were deathly afraid of them and their friends respected them lest they become enemies.

'Cuz I could swear you are a moby.  

I'll only bother with the last century or so.

Germany made war on her neighbors for several hundred years, virtually without stopping except to rearm.  Japan made war in the East for something like 7,000 years.

1914 came along and Germany decided to make war on Europe, again.  (This is the CliffNotes version)  They fought the Russians, Brits and French (heh) to a standstill that pretty much killed off most of one generation of European men.  The Americans got involved and in fairly short order the Germans figured out they would lose.  So they negotiated a surrender with almost nary a shot fired on German soil.  Millions of dead kids but not much in the way of collateral damage.

Then came the treaty of Versailles.  Collateral damage.  What the Armies didn't do the politicians did.  They punished the German people.

Along comes Hitler.  Bad economy, etc, etc, etc.  Starts a war in Europe.  After all, it had been some 20+ years since Europe had been at war so it was about time.

Then there were the Japanese.  They wanted control of all of the Pacific.  So they attacked Pearl Harbor in the silly hope that they could knock out our fleet, kill a few of us, and we'd give up.  Never forget:  Hope is NOT a plan.

Fast forward to 1945.  What Hitler and the Japanese were sure would be a quick strike that would give them the empires they deserved turned into a blood bath.  Some 60+ MILLION dead people later (more like 80 million if you count the Russians who were killed by Stalin), every major city in Germany was reduced to ashes.  Another generation of European men were dead.  There was no such thing as industry or agricultural production in Germany.  The country was generally bombed back to the dark ages.  We slaughtered their Armies on the battlefields and killed untold numbers of civilians with indiscriminate bombing.

In Japan, the Japanese General Staff demanded their Armies fight to the last man.  They did.  Of approximately 130,000 troops on Okinawa, US Marines killed 107,000 of them in a battle lasting two and one-half months.  Nearly 90,000 US Marines were killed or wounded.  

At that time we had been firebombing Japanese cities all over Japan to no great effect on their will to fight.  Truman made the decision and dropped the two Atomic Bombs.  Both cities were devastated in the blasts.  More people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo than either A-Bomb blast.  That broke the Japanese will to fight and they surrendered.

In both cases the aggressor countries were completely destroyed.  They were then rebuilt the US.  Interestingly enough, in the wake of total destruction, neither Germany or Japan has been an aggressor for the last 60 years.  You won't find a 60 year time frame anywhere in their history where they weren't either starting or finishing a war.

Bottom line, if you're still with me, is that the proximate cause of WWII was the end of WWI.  No military victory.  So, if you are planning on starting a war and prefer to not fight it again in the next generation, make sure you win decisively.  In the case of Iran, that means destroying the theocratic/political infrastructure represented by the Mullahs.  If the army and navy wants to fight, destroy them do not let them meld back into their homes.

We don't have to take on everyone.  We just have to make sure that everyone knows for sure we will destroy their way of life if they mess with us.  Therein lies the problem.  The left does not have the will.

I prefer their full name 'nuclear weapon'.

It isn't a matter of being shy about calling them by name, its that, to me anyway, "nuke" is too glib, too casual a term, too easy to forget what they are capable of in the wrong hands. They aren't just a gun or a rock or a spear.

and I could use the money.

That last post read like 'the moon is a harsh mistress' by layedbackguy.  So sorry, Robert H.

I have read most of RAH's books and short stories, and liked most of them.

The moon...tells about a group of rebels, much like our American patriots, not ruling the earth, but taking controll for the sake of freedom for all; funny, I seem to recall the heroes of the book were fighting a UN like world government!  A good read.  I'll provide a link to the amazon listing, if anyone here wants, and I'm still awake.

Pretty good CliffNotes recap.

I don't know what to say; this mostly lurker shall sit down and shut up now.

I'm trying to comment on a complex subject, and I often have mixed feelings, when it comes to matters of war and international politics.  I'm sorry if I have offended you.  The morals of this situation are not clear-cut, and sometimes I type before I think.

I've had a long day and my fingers are works before my brain is in gear.  I've also been dealing with a couple of really brain dead trolls.

Sorry for being snotty.  Hang around, you'll get used to us.  We'll kinda grow on you.  Probably something like a wart.  :>)

I have been typing too fast, and thinking out loud here.  I seldom post, and that is part of the problem with me tonight.  I mostly just hang out and read at RedState, when I have the time.

I enjoy a good debate, and sometimes I may cross the line.

Thank you for being a gentleman.

Roses are red,

Violets are blue.

I'm schizophrenic

and so am I.

Ha Ha!  Guess I'm just a typical 40 yr old guy...maybe I'll have it all figured out when I hit age 80?, someday, hopefully...

This is after all war, and if we think we can win a war in which we will not tolerate casualties--be they civilian on the enemy side or military on our own--against an enemy who has no such compunction and is willing to blow up his own soldiers and massacre his own civilians--let alone ours--we are deluding ourselves.  I'm certainly not saying that we should stoop to their tactics or level, but war is a dirty, tough business and if it must be fought, it is better to be fought hard and well.

it's just the wrong one.  With my bedpan beside me just in case I perused the NYT yesterday, already the BushLied about Iran stuff has commenced.  The starting gate isn't even on the track and already they're off and running.  Oh they have a will alright, a will for self destruction.  

     Rome held and commanded the respect and loyalty of it's people.  It's strength was in the citizen army and the cohesion of it's population. We have just the opposite and any comparisons or references to hegemony flounder on that rock.  We are in for some very tough times unless a certain out of power political party and a media with too much power come to the realization that their asses are in the same sling as the rest of us and we survive and prosper as a nation or go down together.

is to what extent are they doing it in this chapter of events.

Another is what is W doing to get one or more moves ahead?

The historical relationship between the U.S., Israel, Iran
only leads one to actually wonder what is going on in the "back channels". Most
people forget our pre Islamic revolution ties and relationships built with Iran
during the war with Iraq (for the memory challenged, we sided with Iran) have not completely gone
away. Nor is our military or intelligence gathering personnel geopolitical
Iranian neophytes. In 2005, the Iranians were already complaining
about "low level flights". Can you imagine what is going on now?

At one point in 2002 it was even suggested that Israel
might have been covertly helping Iran. Add to this entire scenario that
U.S. military assets are on their borders and I trust there is much more going
on below the surface.

Since the MSM is always in a rush to portray this
administration badly, we can always count on them to take the intelligence
information misdirection bait. With that in mind, I suspect somewhere a bunch
of intelligence operatives are uncontrollably chortling.

I won't be the sage on this one, however I trust the
situation is under control.

Thanks "A-Phant" for another thought provoking post.

I meant to say we ALSO sided with Iran. Sorry for the typo.

Good points, MT--this is an extremely complex situation, which I think explains why we haven't taken action yet.