if the americans didn't go about stomping on the grounds of Arabia, none of this might have happened in the first place. Unless, of course, you think it is some sort of a God-given right to the americans to do as they please and where they please. In which case, the Muslims cannot simultaneously be denied the right to adopt a similar stance towards the americans. Though, this be a 'reaction to' rather than an unprovoked action. Read your history books and you'll know who started first. And the Muslims are right. They will most certainly finish the war - to your detriment. Take my advice and keep to yourselves less 911 x 100 be visited upon you by these militants.

They are looking for the twelfth imam. Well, the delivery is coming soon.

Inquisitor,

We do know who started it - back in the 7th century, when Egypt, Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey were all Christian nations.

And they haven't got a chance against us - but people like you plus defeatists in the US are ensuring that there will be a war, and many people dead because of it.

You should be ashamed of yourself...unless you are in the firing line, then all you are doing is your mite in helping to kill your fellow men.

Mark - I dont know why you even bother counting manpower fit for military service. If you think an administration with 30% approval ratings can pull off a draft, you are really dreaming. Maybe a future administration with some semblance of public trust could, but not this one.

Bush may be a man who can will act, but he's going to be limited to the forces that are still busy working on the "stunning victory" in Iraq.

extramedium,

45% according to Rasmussen - a much more reliable survey than the others; and Rasmussen will let you know that a poll of adults (like the Rasmussen survey) understates GOP support by several percentage points (at least 5, in my experience).

Be that as it may, the strike against Iran won't be on the ground, most likely...but I was just pointing out the absolute absurdity of Iran challenging us. And, of course, you have to just keep the drumbeat up...the same anti-Bush drumbeat which has convinced that idiot Iranian general that he can win a fight with us.

The so-called "anti-war" movement is going to have a lot of blood on its hands...

With people like Barneyg2000 on their side, I'm sure that Iran is convinced that this country is on the ropes. I'm sure that Barneyg2000 is convinced of that as well, as he is doing his best via his posts to discredit, discount, smear, and otherwise undermine any sense of solidarity with our administration.

However, one thing to keep in mind when responding to his posts is to keep things really, really simple. Like, for instance, use small, one-syllable words. Find short cliches and talking points, because any thought-out discussion leaves him unable to respond except to call the postings "long-winded." Then, be prepared for a series of pithy and pathetic postings in which the main points of dailykos.com are paraded out in abbreviated form without any original thoughts of his own...

From the American point of view, with friends like him, who needs an enema?

I'm sure that he'd be welcomed with open arms in Tehran. After all, he's mouthing their talking points for them. Is he being paid by the DNC or is it just his ignorance showing?

Was that short enough for you, buddy?

Mark,

One of the main reasons Iran is so bellicose is because they see the U.S. bogged down in Iraq. If we won a "stunning victory" in Iraq, why are American troops and Iraqi civilians still being killed there on a regular basis and why are so many retired generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation?

I just recently joined the US Air Force.. I am currently in Tech school for Ground Radio communications, and I can't wait until I can be deployed to Iraq, or soon to Iran for that matter.

I am firmly behind Bush. Even if saddamn didn't have WMDS... it's better to take him out before he got them then after....

As goes with Iran... better to take them out before they get a nuke then after... and the clocks ticken.

Don't let Russia fool you much like they were making money off Iraq and helped them with intelligance... Russia is making money off Iran as well, so yes they will oppose the war.

The US will have to lead this effort much like the last one.

peace...through superior firepower
I'm out,
chuckyj

Brian,

Because "so many" equals precisely five - your theory would have something to it if we were, indeed, "bogged down" in Iraq...actually, in a pinch we could probably send our entire force in Iraq against Iran...though my bet is we'd prefer another 12 months to continue training the Iraqi security forces, and especially the local police forces.

"So many generals"....six?

1000's of generals and 6 is so many?

Good Lord, no wonder you people on the left are crazy when you think 6 Generals is somehow a number of significance.

I'd like to remind Inquisitor that we were attacked on 9/11 before we went into Iraq under W. We were attacked at our embassies before we went into Iraq. We were attacked at the USS Cole before we went into Iraq. We were attacked the first WTC before we went into Iraq.

This concept by some of you on the left is completely void of any historical facts.

Let alone the fact that the President of Iran is saying repeatedly that they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth and apparently that doesn't register one bit with you people. Amazing. And yet Jewish people still vote Democratic...why I have no idea. You guys would just let Israel be blown away.

The reason Iran is so bellicose is because they see a lack of resolve on part of US government in particular and western world in general to confront it. US seriousness in dealing with Iran problem can be measured by their attitude toward the main Iranian opposition. US government has put the main opposition to the Mullah's regime on terrorist list in a gesture to appease the "moderates" in Iran.
This is the real reason for Iran's leaders showing their middle finger to the rest of the world, not the noise emanating from bunch of marginal leftist!

Sure, there could be air strikes, but that's not really a war. We'd actually have to put troops on the ground for it to be considered a war with a beginning and an end, i.e. a victory. And conscripts or not, we'd need considerable troops- which we don't have, without a draft.

If Iran attacks us or our allies, this country will gladly go to war. Pardon my pre 9/11 world view, but I think we'll only be getting into this war the old fashioned way - by being attacked first.

extramedium,

Huh? Last I checked, dropping bombs on people was war...

And to wait until attacked is to have your fleet at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, or your Twin Towers a smoking hole in lower Manhattan...no, extra, morally it is required that we strike as early as possible, to prevent a longer and worse war in the future.

And as for a draft - I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't even have done it in WWII. At the end of the day, of the 12 million men we mobilized for war in WWII, only 1 million saw actual combat. I'd have had it that we relied upon volunteers to work up to a 5 or 6 million man military so superbly trained and equipped that all of them could be used all at once. We didn't need a draft then, we don't need one now...but we might need a larger military, and with the pool of fit males, we can make it pretty much as large as we need it to be, and we'll always far outpace Iran.

You see, you're still not getting my point here - Iran is acting as if they have the ability to fight us with a prospect of success. They don't - it is suicidal on their part to try...but thanks to you in the so-called "anti-war" movement, the mullahs are encouraged.

Not always. Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan - no declaration of war there. I believe that's the sort of bombing were talking about here. We won't even be able to see the impertinence slapped off their faces from 15,000 feet.

You might have something with that 6 million man volunteer army idea - it would provide a avenue of opportunity for lot of low skill folks with no new deal or unions to carry them to middle class. We'd have a real battle to get the money for it in the short term, but it may have some legs longer term.

Iran is just talking tough - chest beating, sabre rattling. They are years away from being a threat. The diplomatic path we are on seems appropriate right now. No need to chest beat ourselves just yet.

So you're saying that the ridiculous anti-war movement is so powerful, it's causing Iran to act far differently than it would otherwise?

I don't buy it. I don't buy for one minute that the anti-war group has that much power. I think you're just blaming them because you don't like them.

So you're saying that the ridiculous anti-war movement is so powerful, it's causing Iran to act far differently than it would otherwise?

I don't buy it. I don't buy for one minute that the anti-war group has that much power. I think you're just blaming them because you don't like them.

"Years away from being a threat".

That's what they said in 1945 about the Russians...three years later they tested their atomic bomb.

Of course liberals would like us to wait...just like North Korea wasn't going to be a threat either so said Jimmy Carter and Clinton.

You guys are so naive.

The bellicose statments of Iran and North Korea for that matter are based on their perception of the devision in this country and the historical precedent set by Vietnam and Mogidishu.

They are counting on the "cut and run defeatocrats" as their biggest defense in any engagement with the US.

As has been pointed out above, the Muslim war on the west and against Christianity and Judiasm pre-dates US involvement in the middle east. It has bubbled under the surface for centuries and has from time to time surfaced in violence against the west. The Inquisitor seems to forget that fact.

The MSM doesn't like to point out these facts either, lest they waken the western world to the reality of this on going struggle.

Pope Jean Paul's assassination attempt: a muslim.

Bobby Kennedy's assassin: Sirhan Sirhan, a muslim

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo (by a muslim), precipitated the Austrian declaration of war against Serbia which triggered World War I.

In fact the term Assassin originally referred to a Muslim order known as the Hashshashin.

But western apologists for the muslims like the inquisitor either never learned these facts or chose to ignore them, prefering instead to blame the US for every perceived problem in the world.

Iran is asking for war. Their president has again called for the destruction of Israel. Why are they not kicked out of the UN? This is an outrage!

Hi,

I think Ahmadinejad has a pretty good reason to be confident--you can even find it in the speech that you cite. Unfortunately, we've put ourselves in a pretty awkward position. We have thousands of troops on the ground in a fragile "democracy" at Amhadinejad's doorstep. If we decide to attack Iran, even if we limit that attack to airstrikes, those troops and that democracy will be vulnerable to retaliation by Iran in the form of missile strikes.

This is not to say that the United States military cannot grind Iran and its people into dust. Of course it can. But the sacrifices that would be required of the American people--not to mention the liberated Iraqis who would bear the brunt of the retaliation--might be more than Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are willing to stomach.

Bushbacker

You said "Even if saddam didn't have WMDS.... it's better to take him out before he got them after....".

We don't have WMDS either, but we have oil. Are you going to take us out too?

Peace - without firepower.

Wow inquisitor, have you tried on your suicide vest yet?

Iran did not threaten Israel it threatened the Zionists. It said the "Zionist regime" and never mentioned Israel. All Jews are not Zionists and all Zionists are not Jews. The Zionist movement is again trying to gin up violence against anyone who would call them wrong or disagree with them. Peace

Do you not recognize baiting when you see it?

And what's this "stunning defeat" you speak of? That a super-power could invade a third world country and bomb it back to the 9th century? Yeah, that's real impressive. Too bad there was no plan for what to do after the "stunning defeat."

45% according to Rasmussen - a much more reliable survey than the others; and Rasmussen will let you know that a poll of adults (like the Rasmussen survey) understates GOP support by several percentage points (at least 5, in my experience).

Actually, if you look at the trend of Bush on Rasmussen over the last month or so it is lower than 45 as that has been his high point with 40 the low point.

Also, Mark can you please provide a source for your statement that Rasmussen believes all of his political polls are off by 5% with Republicans. I seriously doubt that he would openly admit his polls are off by that much because that would make his polls pretty much useless. I remember that Rasmussen was considered the most accurate pollster in 2004. How would that be possible if all his polls are off by 5%?

Isn't the rationalization between Mark's beliefs hilarious. Oh yeah, if polls are down, that is okay because the polls are off by 5%. I guarantee you if Bush's numbers were even lower, Mark's number the polls are off by would increase to compensate for it. And then, when they get low enough, Mark goes to the polls are stupid line. And then finally, the poll was conducted wrong so it is not reliable.

There is always an excuse ready with this man.

Vote Mark Noonan the next Iraqi Information Minister.

I take it that you won't be going to Iran...How nice to be able to send other young men and women to their death..

Iran is acting as if they have the ability to fight us with a prospect of success. They don't - it is suicidal on their part to try...but thanks to you in the so-called "anti-war" movement, the mullahs are encouraged.

This is the same crap that Bin Laden spews, the same crap Hussein spewed, so I don't see any difference with Iran. Are you blaiming the anti-war movement of the future the reason behind Hussein saying the same type of thing 4 years ago.

Actually, I doubt we can find very many quotes throughout history where a leader of a country did not say these sort of things before war was almost inevitable. I do not think you will find very many quotes where a leader will say - "Yeah, we don't have much of a chance, but it will be fun to sacrifice thousands of our troops for an obvious loss."

Also Mark, since you claim the anti-war movement is the cause of war, do you also believe that the pro-war movement actually creates peace?

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi [of Iran] said with a grin.

Hmmm... He's using the word "quagmire". Our enemy is using the word quagmire in a sentence in which he is taunting the USA. I wonder where he heard that word? Kennedy? Murtha? Fill in the blank American leftist...

Brokeback,

Just go to the site - I've actually read it there; but it is also something that is known - polls almost invariably understate GOP strength; no one knows precisely why this is, but its been so common for so long that it is an expected thing...more curiously, weekend polls tend to even further understate GOP strength than weekday polls. Don't blame me for the reality of the situation - but any pollster worth his salt will confirm this.

In a fairly taken poll - ie, a poll with a respondent pool comparable with the actual demographic breakdown of the electorate in past elections - the GOP will be understated...the most in polls of adults, less understated in polls of registered voters, and even less understated in polls of likely voters...but still understated in each sort of poll (on average, over time - some times a poll can get it exactly right, but that is more happenstance than technical ability).

The polls you on the left have been slavering over are polls of adults - so they understate GOP strength to begin with...but worse than that, the pollsters seem determined on presenting a false picture (only a really stupid anti-Bush animus can explain it) by greatly over-sampling Democratic respondents - some of the polls have had 43% of the respondents Democrats and only 30% Republican; small wonder that they show bad numbers for President Bush when 90% of Democrats have a poor opinion of him.

You can slice and dice a poll a lot of different ways - as an example, you could poll 1,001 adults in the US and even make it a proper 33% split between Republican and Democrat...but if you "randomly" only call Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Chicago, you are going to get a poll skewed in an anti Bush manner. My father is a statistician and he's given me a bit of instruction in the ways you can make a "fair" poll come out any way you like.

This is why polls are generally to be distrusted. Remember all those polls in 2004 which had it that a majority of Americans thought the country was going on the wrong track? Traditionally, when the right track/wrong track nubmers are bad, an incumbant President is in deep trouble...I was never worried about it...with home sales and other big ticket item sales skyrocketing in 2004, I knew that regardless of what a poll said, a majority of Americans felt the country was on the right track...they wouldn't have been buying all those houses and cars if they thought we were on the verge of catastrophe.

This is why I always say to consult what people do, rather than what they say...polls say things, people do things...the level of opposition to the war is reflected in the pathetic turn out in the anti-war demonstrations last month. You can count on polls carrying you to victory in November, I'm counting on voters who are happy, prosperous and proud of our military.

Brokeback,

Yes, it does - those of us who are determined that the United States be militarily supreme and willing to use its power at need are the best peacemakers the world has.

Wars only come, Brokeback, when BOTH sides think they can win - Iran would only be challenging us on this level if they thought they could win (if it were just bluster, then we'd also be seeing a lot of low-level "give" on the part of the Iranians vis a vis their nuclear program - there is nothing like that happening, as far as I can tell). The Iranian mullahs are counting on you to carry the field for them.

You can deny it all you like, you can be as angry at me for saying it as you like - but when you provide statements which make the enemy think we lack the will to win, then you (meaning you in the anti-war movement) are responsible for the resultant war.

Ames,

Because the UN, if it could, would also call for the destruction of Israel...the Tehran's madman is just speaking what the UN wishes...

"We don't have WMDS either, but we have oil. Are you going to take us out too?"

Posted by: Canadian Observer

hhhmmmmmmmmm...not a bad idea. We can probably send the Cub Scouts and have it done over a weekendm so they can be back at school on Monday.

Just go to the site - I've actually read it there;

So you cannot provide a quote or a link to this. Please execuse me for not believing you until you can provide some sort of "proof" of Rasmussen actually stating this. I seriously doubt he is going to undermine his business by saying all of his political polls are off by 5%.

no one knows precisely why this is

But you expect me to believe it is real. You have nothing here Noonan.

Wars only come, Brokeback, when BOTH sides think they can win

Wow you seem to be way off your game lately. This is not a true, factual statement from Mark once again. War sometimes comes when one country invades another without the other side wanting war. The invaded country is forced to defend itself whether they think they can win or not.

Conservatives often talk about taking personal responsibility, but they do nothing of the such. Hypocrites at the highest level. The problems in Iraq are not the fault of the leaders controlling the war, but rather the minority political party with no control of any body of government. Wars have not been caused by people that favor going to war, but those who would rather not go to war.

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are in complete control of every body of our government at the federal level right now and they take no responsibility for anything that goes wrong. At first they claim nothing is going wrong. Then, speaking out of the other side of their mouth, they say what is going wrong is the fault of the liberals who have no real power currently or the media.

You can slice and dice a poll a lot of different ways - as an example, you could poll 1,001 adults in the US and even make it a proper 33% split between Republican and Democrat...but if you "randomly" only call Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Chicago, you are going to get a poll skewed in an anti Bush manner. My father is a statistician and he's given me a bit of instruction in the ways you can make a "fair" poll come out any way you like.

Of course polls can be skewed. There are lots of ways a poll can become inaccurate. But done properly, polls can also be quite reliable. The problem with your stance Mark is first you say all polls are dumb, but then you continue to quote at least one poll a week. Second, you automatically say any poll that does not favor your team is bad and unreliable. I caught you lying a few weeks back when you said there was no such thing as a poll of Americans tying 9/11 to Hussein. But there was a poll and then immediately after being caught in your lie you went to the argument that the poll was unreliable. You have no integrity or honesty. Could you ever say a poll that did not favor your team was accurate? Can you take some personal responsibility and admit you lied about the 9/11 and Hussein poll?

Brokeback,

Lying? So, you can tell that I knew such a poll existed and was deliberately saying that something I knew to be true, wasn't?

Do you always go around insulting people like that? Just how many times have you be punched in the nose for slandering someone?

That aside:

I don't say all polls are dumb - I'm just realistic about how polls work. They can be useful, and the reason that Rasmussen is so useful is that he polls all the time and uses the same methodology all the time...meaning that if there is an error, it is repeated endlessly and thus the poll is still tremendously useful in spotting long term trends...this is why I can say with certainty that President Bush's level of support has been battered since November of 2004, but it hasn't been the catastrophic loss of support that AP/Ipsos and Gallup are showing.

You've also got to remember - President Bush isn't up for re-election: this means that whenever a pollster asks people about President Bush, the mental alternative is the perfect President, and then how President Bush compares with perfection. This is sort of like how "Un-Named Democrat" did so well against President Bush in late 2003, but then "Named Democrat" fell flat...

You can call me a liar all you want - the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. If I'm right, then the GOP will win in November. I do hope you'll be here on election night.

Brokeback,

And wars do only start when both sides think they can win. When one side is convinced that war will lead to certain defeat then they either knuckle under without a shot being fired, or swiftly cave when the guns go off.

And example of the former was Czechoslovakia in 1938; of the latter would be Holland in 1940. Meanwhile, betweenn those two dates was Poland - Poland doesn't get a lot of WWII respect because they were crushed in 30 days...but their courage! My, God, how they fought...to the bitter end and beyond. Why? Because they thought they were going to win...convinced of their might (the last war they had fought was in 1920 when they had defeated communist Russia) and assured that their allies France and Britain were attacking the Geramns in the West, the Poles fought with confidence in swift victory...wasn't their fault that their military might wasn't all that great, or that France and Britain would prove so cowardly in the west in 1939.

The morale is to the material as three is to one - people will do amazing things if they think it will work...including pipsqueek nations like Iran.

phnxbmed

I know it's getting harder & harder to get people for the military but going after the boy cubs should be your last resort. Leave them in school.

Mark,
Some fight for pride and beliefs alone, even in the face of certain defeat. Remember the alamo?

Men we need to stop this here pissing match right quick. This stat by our most odorous host Mark has me a bit ansy and not in a good way.

Manpower fit for military service:

US = 54,609,050 / Iran = 15,665,725

Now let's scale this back little bit here. Now I'm all for fightin', don't get me wrong. It's just when I have to do teh fightin that get's me.

I bought my yellow ribbon and I think I dune enough to serve ma country and all. This stat you listed kinda remidsn me that thar may be a draft perhaps to fight this new war. I'm all for supportin teh troops, but becomin' one? I have other priorities thank you very much.

These priorities include talking tough and supporting the war from the safetly of my couch with the rest of my GOP buddies.

So as long as there are no drafts and no taxes to pay for this war and such, it's fine by me.

Matt,

Ah, but that was a desperate rear-guard defense in order to allow other troops to be organized for victory...men can choose to fight in a hopeless battle, but a hopeless cause? No, doesn't happen except in the rarest circumstances. Don't just remember the Alamo, remember Bataan, Corrigedor and Wake...the men there fought even though they knew they were defeated, but determined to take a blood price out of an enemy they knew their nation would eventually defeat.

Jim and Mark - yes, we will have to wait until we or our allies are actually attacked to enter a war with Iran. Yes, I mean sunk fleets or smoking holes. I wouldn't be surprised to see unilateral airstrikes, but no actual war with soldiers on the ground.

This administration no longer has the public trust or political capital at home or abroad to wage pre-emptive war, period.

If we are attacked, then Bush might return to his glory days of public support for military action after 9/11, before he let his neocon buddies squander it on Iraq.

This anti-war movement you speak of would wholeheartedly support a war if we were attacked or in immediate, unquestionable danger. It's really more of anti-pre-emptive-war movement or an anti-cowboy-diplomacy movement.

A little bit more history about the invasion of Poland by Germany and the U.S.S.R.

Sept 1, 1939 - Germany invaded from the west
Sept 17, 1939 - Russia invaded from the east

Poland knew that Germany was going to attack. Germany was positioning itself this way. Poland figured it could hold out for 2 weeks, falling back and using their rivers as points to turn and fight again. Meanwhile, France had a treaty with Poland, and stated that when Germany invaded Poland, France would invade Germany across the Rhine and smash Germany in their unprotected rear. Problem is, France didn't do this. Instead, they hid.

Poland held out for twice as long as they said they could, fought bravely, and much of their military, when the battle was hopeless, escaped the country and continued to fight alongside the British throughout the entire war.

Statement that war only happens when both sides think the can win - no, Saddam Hussein knew he was in trouble. Every time the U.S. made a demand, Hussein said 'okay okay, you can inspect the palaces' or whatever the demand was. I'm sure you will protest that one, but how about this one - he started to destroy his own long-range missles to try and avoid invasion. He knew he was going to lose, but President Bush was intent on invading. The U.S. could not be beaten by the likes of Iraq. Bush knew it. So did Hussein. But this did not avert the war.

I will state this again, as I did in a previous post. I trusted the judgement of Pope John Paul the Great on the Iraq War more than that of President Bush. I pray we win, that the Iraqis will get their act together and actually form a government, that we can bring our boys and girls home. But I do not believe we should have gone in in the first place. We removed a stabilizing, though brutal, government, one that allowed Christians to exist side-by-side with Muslims. Now we have Sunni vs Shia, and the Christians are having to abandon the country in droves. Is this progress? I don't think so.

Now, unfortunately, too many conservatives are clamoring for war with Iran. Why? Is it just to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, or is it for overthrowing their government? If it is the nuclear facilities, why not let our ally Israel do it. Their pilots are as good (or better) than ours. But we cannot bring about regime change from the air. Nothing happening there. Look at Clinton's attempt at bullying Serbia. We flew from 30,000 feet, and how much damage did we actually do? Most of the Serbian tanks survived, rolling back into eastern Serbia after our bombing stopped. We ended up taking the deal that Slobodan Milosevich offered us in the first place - "You can put troops into Kosovo, but not into the rest of Serbia." What we went to war with them over is that we wanted to be able to move freely throughout the entire country. The bombing stopped when we accepted *their* proposal, not them accepting ours.

If we are to beat Iran, we need to move in troops, plain and simple. Their government is not going to topple from a sustained bombing campaign. Just keep that in mind when you clamor for war.

-Lee

The U.S. actually need allies this time if they're going to attack Iran. The blogger seems to forget that out of the U.S. military troop strength, nearly 500,000 are in constant rotation in and out of Iraq. The other 1 million are stationed at strategic and vital points around the world. Anything other than an air-assault against Iran would not be feasible if the U.S. does not have help.

Iran has virtually no international support. However, if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the U.N. and some Arab countries, more will join Iran's side.

extramedium,

We tremble in our boots at the awesome strength of the so-called "ant-war" movement...how many came out to protest on the third anniversary? Did it get up to 20,000 nationwide?

All you've got is the usual suspects, but amazingly amplified by the MSM megaphone...this November will demonstrate who has support, and who doesn't.

Meanwhile, it doesn't matter how much support the President has in a Gallup poll..being President requires a person to do more than just check polls...sometimes it requires a decision in the teeth of conventional wisdom.

Shawn,

There isn't a single nation on earth that will lift a finger to help Iran in a fight with the United States. Not one - not now, not ever. Get into the real world: the world in which there would be ritualistic denunciations of US action in Iran, and sighs of relief around the world because we acted.

By my count, even after deducting the troops in Iraq and those who just came back, we've got a bit more than 100,000 ground troops immediately available for Iran, if necessary - given that the Iranian military is only slightly better than the old Saddamite Iraqi military, this does not present a problem....but you are also ignoring the fact that the 130,000 troops in Iraq can be used at need in Iran.

At any event, I don't think they will be needed - - I believe that any strike we make against Iran would be aerial.

Lee,

Who is clamouring for war? I'm just recogising reality - while continuing to pray that Iran's leaders will come to reason.

Your analysis is also quite wrong about war in general - Saddam was defiant because he thought he could win. His plan was to hang us up in a bunch of "Mogadishus" until we quit - what he didn't expect is that we'd come straight at him, no matter what else was happening (this was done because the Saddamite regime was Saddam - get rid of him, and you've got rid of it). He also didn't count on the fact that President Bush isn't President Clinton - ie, he's not a gutless person who accidentally got into the White House and should never have been trusted with a postition higher than County Clerk.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." - wrote Retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold about the Iraq war in this week's Time magazine.

Mark, I think you would do well to read this. It applies to you as well. You talk about putting soldiers lives on the line like somone talking about a sunday football game.

And your rhetoric - "shaking in our boots", "pipsqueek nations like Iran", "people who should tremble at the prospect of conflict with the United States". What's with all the bravado and trash talk? When you are the leader of the free world, you need to act a little bigger than that. Verbal shots from smaller countries comes with the territory. Only actions should raise our ire.

Extra,

Just read it - unfortunately, the general hasn't the first clue of what he is talking about. Thank goodness he's out - he'd have made a hash out of any military operation he was in charge of.

During the Napoleonic period in France, Napoleon's generals drew up a war plan - it provided for strong forces at every avenue for an enemy to invade France...Napoleon's comment was acid: "what are you trying to do, prevent smuggling?". Just because a person has the rank of a general, it doesn't necessarily mean they know how to conduct a war.

General Newbold holds that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake - that we should have concentrated our efforts on al Qaeda. That we should, as it were, have placed the finest military force in human history on a rabbit-hunt in the mountains of Afghanistan...when most of al Qaeda had already decamped to Pakistan, which we couldn't invade. Our troops would have been lined up on the Afghan borders, being bushwacked from time to time, and preventing a great deal of smuggling.

He brings the refrain, "never again"...meaning that never again should US troops have to go to a mistaken and badly conducted war like Vietnam...and yet his plan would have created a mini-Vietnam...an inescapable qaugmire because it would not have attacked the reall problem: Islamist and facist regimes who sponsor terrorism. Once Mullah Omar was forced out of Kabul, Afghanistan became a secondary theater of operations - at that point, our choices were Syria, Iran and Iraq...one of them had to be liberated in order to kick start the changes necessary to stop the Arab/Moslem world from being a breeding ground and State-sponsor of terrorism...Iraq fit the bill on three counts:

1. Saddam was an ongoing threat to us and his neighbors.

2. We had a score of justifications for liberating Iraq.

3. Iraq is the strategic center of gravity in the middle east - control it, and you de-facto control the whole area.

Newbold is just another in a long line of hidebound generals who are afraid to make a decision - he's a McClellan in war which needs a Grant.

Posted by: HugeWangUSAF at April 15, 2006 07:07 PM

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

Defeatist!!!

Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 15, 2006 06:50 PM

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

Defeatist!!!

Posted by: Brokeback at April 15, 2006 05:26 PM

Defeatist!!!

Posted by: bdonikian at April 15, 2006 12:20 PM

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

Defeatist!!!

Posted by: PM at April 15, 2006 11:46 AM

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

Defeatist!!!

Posted by: steve at April 15, 2006 11:32 AM

Big fat, unintelligent defeatist!!!

Posted by: Power at April 15, 2006 03:00 AM

Head in the sand defeatist!!!

the americans didn't go about stomping on the grounds of Arabia, none of this might have happened in the first place. Unless, of course, you think it is some sort of a God-given right to the americans to do as they please and where they please. In which case, the Muslims cannot simultaneously be denied the right to adopt a similar stance towards the americans. Though, this be a 'reaction to' rather than an unprovoked action. Read your history books and you'll know who started first. And the Muslims are right. They will most certainly finish the war - to your detriment. Take my advice and keep to yourselves less 911 x 100 be visited upon you by these militants.

Posted by: Inquisitor at April 15, 2006 12:59 AM

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

I hate to be the A-hole that feels obliged to say it how it is, but after 45 posts and only one reference, I feel it is my duty to say, bite me inquisitor! You don't sound like our typical defeatist, as a matter of fact, you sound like a wannabe terrorist that's threatening us! get a grip, get a life, get a job! Try to contribute to society rather than distribute your body parts!!!

1. Saddam was an ongoing threat to us and his neighbors.
---- But was he the imminent threat that he was made out to be? No. Did he attack us? No. Were we out to get bin Laden? Yes.
He was a threat to deal with but by no means an imminent threat.

2. We had a score of justifications for liberating Iraq.
---- Explain. What did we have for all these justifications? I mean real justifications not that the smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud.

3. Iraq is the strategic center of gravity in the middle east - control it, and you de-facto control the whole area.
---- Who says the US has to contol the whole area of the Middle East? Was this about taking contol of the entire area of the world? Since when is it up to us to take contol of an area that has been around for thousands of years?
We should take contol of all North America, should we invade Canada?

Newbold is just another in a long line of hidebound generals who are afraid to make a decision - he's a McClellan in war which needs a Grant.
---- He obviously is a treasonous liberal who has only listens to the mainstream media... right?

extramedium

RE: "If Iran attacks us or our allies, this country will gladly go to war. Pardon my pre 9/11 world view, but I think we'll only be getting into this war the old fashioned way - by being attacked first."

Thinking like that is ludicrous, idiotic, and suicidal! If it were only the lives of your liberals that were at risk, I would say go right ahead, but there are still some of us who understand the real world and aren't suicidal. Fortunately, President Bush is much smarter than your average everyday liberal!

You would actually wait until Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or some other American city or cities were wiped off the face of the earth before you would strike a likely attacker first and to try and prevent it? What about your city or town and your family? You would let it be destroyed too before you took military action to stop it? You would wait until hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of American citizens were vaporized in a nuclear blast before you would go to war to prevent it? You would wait until you were 100% certain that we had been attacked before you would take military action? Really! And just what liberal instructor taught you that logic?

I know. You are going to tell me you believe all of Iran's "promises" to use their weapon's grade nuclear material only for energy and peaceful purposes. You are going to tell me that the diplomats will take care of it and talk, and talk, and talk... while Iran makes one nuclear bomb, two nuclear bombs, three nuclear bombs, etc. You are going to tell me the UN will take care of it, just like they take care of ever other really major crisis. Have you read the history of World War II and Pearl Harbor. Japan had it's diplomats talking about peace in the Pacific while they were preparing to strike Pearl Harbor.

As hard as it may be to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons now, it will be far more difficult, perhaps impossible, to control them once they get their first nuclear bomb. Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, we face the real risk that they may just use them if we conduct a military strike... maybe not on us... maybe on Israel... maybe on one of our allies... but the devastation on the world's and our economy will have much the same effect. In the meantime, while we "talk" and listen to their "promises", Iran would continue full speed ahead to develop more nuclear weapons that are even more advanced, along with missiles that eventually can strike American cities... making it even harder to stop them.

We aren't talking about sticks and stones and conventional weapons here! In case your liberal instructors haven't taught you about nuclear bombs, do a little reading on your on. These things can kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people at a time. They wipe entire cities, or countries the size of Israel off the face of the earth. Even those countries not hit directly will be dealing with the fallout, the radiation, and cancers from them for years. The world economies, along with that of America will be devastated for many years. You and the rest of America won't be enjoying the life and lifestyle you live today!

Look at North Korea. Because we waited and did nothing to stop them, now we are limited in what we can do. There is the real possibility they could destroy cities in South Korea and Japan once we strike their nuclear facilities. But... North Korea "promised" Clinton that they were only going to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and energy production! Yeah! Right! The "liberal" world "bought into" their "promises" because it was the "easy" thing to do! And now you liberals want to make the same dumb mistake again. You want to be sucked in by the same line of lies and garbage from some fanatical nuts in Iran!

We aren't dealing with the Soviet Union or a rational thinking nation here. In the case of the Soviet Union, our strength and mutual assured destruction kept them and America from initiating a nuclear war. The Soviet Union didn't want to be destroyed any more than we did. We can not count on that line of rational thinking, however, from stopping a nation like Iran from nuking someone. Look at all of those suicide bombers. They willingly blow themselves up for their cause. Most American's don't comprehend that type of fanatical thinking. Even if the current government in Iran doesn't nuke someone, who's to say an even more radical regime won't take control and destroy "all the infidels" on their way to heaven!!!

RE: "Iran is just talking tough - chest beating, saber rattling. They are years away from being a threat. The diplomatic path we are on seems appropriate right now. No need to chest beat ourselves just yet."

Sure they are! Are you working for the Iranian government propaganda service? ...Because that's exactly the type of language and propaganda I would expect from them!

Yes, I really do hope Iran will get the message. I hope the diplomats will work out a strong solution that really does stop Iran's nuclear weapon's program -- permanently -- and not just "words" that comfort the world and lull them into a "fatal sense of security" and lapse of good judgment. Hopefully any deal they reach with Iran will be a strong one and have real inspections and checks to make sure Iran sticks to and abides by their promises.

There is still time for the diplomats to work out a solution. America's military will give them the backing they need to negotiate from a position of strength and not from weakness. It would help if ALL Americans would stand behind these efforts and let Iran know that if those negotiations fail, there WILL BE MILITARY action... period!

If the diplomats fail, then I support whatever military action is needed to stop Iran's nuclear program for them... either by Israel, or by the United States military -- with or without the "approval" of the UN or the rest of the world. It's not their cities that are at most risk. It is ours and Israel's!

AAR

Bluster aside, the Iranians are not complete fools, they waged a 10 year war to a stalemate against an army that we routed in less than 30 days. The last thing their generals wish to do is confront us on the field of battle.

They recognize that we have a total of 150,000 troops, and equipment on their Eastern and western borders, two attack carrier battle fleets on their southern flank, as well as air bases within one hours flight time from downtown Tehran.

We would establish air superiority in the first 15 minutes of any battle, and we would emasculate their ability to wage war within a few days, along with their nuclear ambitions.

As much as I hate to admit it, Mark, some of the opposition has a point in stating that you seem a tad too jingoistic in your appraisal of an upcoming war with Iran. Your comments strike me as somewhat flippant, immature and shortsighted. Going to war is not a social event, and no one should be beating the war drums such as you appear to be in your posts above.

Tony Blair has come out to bluntly state that the UK won't be willing or able to support us in any substantive manner should we decide to engage Iran in an actual war. The anti-war leftist crowd is more agitated than they've been in years. In part, this is due to the "good news" that some high-ranking ex-Generals are now calling for Sec. Rumsfeld's resignation. The President's political capital has been squandered on issue after issue with the American public - the most recent being his firm insistence that we submit this country to a guest worker program, despite the fact that most Americans are adamantly opposed to it unless we first prove that our borders are secure. And there is still a simmering, smouldering hatred of him and his policies that is bubbling just under the surface. I believe he recognizes these facts, and has opted to work diplomatically to resolve this issue, if at all possible.

As much as I hate to admit it, I believe that the only way that this country can declare war on Iran is if we (or our strategic interests) are directly and deliberately attacked here or elsewhere in the world. And proof of Iran's complicity in any such attack must be irrefutable. Otherwise, I believe that the current polarization that clearly exists in this country will widen even further, if that's possible, into outright civil rebellion on the streets, the campi, and the halls of government.

Our best hopes for stopping Iran's nuclear and hegemonic ambitions lies with Israel, in my opinion.

I'm with you on many, many issues, but the way you seem to be approaching this issue is giving me the creeps. Extramedium referenced how you seem to be talking about a war as if you were citing sports statistics:
___________
"You talk about putting soldiers lives on the line like somone talking about a sunday football game. And your rhetoric - 'shaking in our boots', 'pipsqueek nations like Iran', 'people who should tremble at the prospect of conflict with the United States.' What's with all the bravado and trash talk? When you are the leader of the free world, you need to act a little bigger than that. Verbal shots from smaller countries comes with the territory. Only actions should raise our ire."
_______________

I second that sentiment - as remarkable as it may seem! It is unbecoming of you, and not typical of your otherwise well thought-out posts. You can do - and have done - better than that...

AAR - I have to laugh at the way you paint me into this liberal caricature you have in your head, with no mind of my own, indoctrinated by liberal professors and the evil MSM! I must be wearing Birkenstocks, driving a Prius, reading Chomsky and drinking a latte too!

I'm quite sure that Iran has no intention of enriching uranium to build power plants. They are enriching uranium in an attempt to prove to the world that they deserve respect as a nation. I'm sure they look at the way we emasculated Iraq and said no way is that going to happen to them.

The fact that Iran is years away from developing nuclear weapons was disclosed thursday by US intelligence agencies and widely reported. The statement was made by Thomas Fingar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council and top analyst for intelligence chief John Negroponte. That's not propoganda.

We have lots of time for diplomacy. Diplomacy is the primary focus of the Bush administration. Our diplomacy is backed by the threat of unilateral military action. If we're still "talking" about this a year or two from now, then by all means let's bomb the place.

Look, my beef here is the way Mark is counting US eligible males for a ground war as though that's a realistic option in the next few years. It is not, for reason I've already explained and that has nothing to do with liberals or the anti-war movement.

I also strongly disagree with the agressive rhetoric that sounds like we're overhearing kids playing with GI Joes in their back yard. We are THE worlds superpower - a benevolent leader. We don't seek to make smaller countries "tremble with fear". That sort of attitude breeds suicide bombers.

We agree on one thing. I hope the diplomacy works.

Much has been made about letting North Korea go build a nuke. I for one don't really believe that they yet have the bomb. They have yet to test one, and that is the standard mode of operation of every country that has built one. It will take Iran a very long time to build enough machinery to make the material in the volume required for more than basic tests. I would think that they hope to survive the next two years on bluster, and wait for a weak american President before pushing their luck. I have no doubt that if President Bush thought that they were about to build a bomb, the air force would be released to stop it. As far as the Iranian military goes, it would take about a week to negate without British help. With British help, about 1 hour less than a week.

Lying? So, you can tell that I knew such a poll existed and was deliberately saying that something I knew to be true, wasn't?

Yes, considering my first post in that thread had the link to the poll in it and you posted in response to that post of mine. I told you the poll existed and provided evidence of it and you responded saying the poll was a lie, didn't exist, and thus all liberal ideas about the Iraq war were lies.

You were the one calling me a liar to start with. You were the one throwing around that word, but it was you that was caught lying. And what kind of personal responsibility do you take, what is your answer? Well, you seem to refuse to admit to your lie and I would not expect anything else from such a good upstanding Christian like yourself.

Mark, I still have not seen any quote or link from Rasmussen saying all his polls are flawed by 5%.

Bearman, it is nice that you label me a defeatist because I don't think Iran talking crap really amounts to inevitable war like Noonan does. Also it is nice that you attribute a quote to me that I did not make, but why would I expect you to actually understand what I am saying before you call me your Rush Limbaugh "Word of the Day".

Nice try Broken back! My labels aren't due to one or two posts, but every post you and your other stereotypical libs I labeled! Hey man, don't lose sleep on it, it's kinda like you libs labeling christian conservatives with all that is bad in this country! Just the way it is I guess!

SOL,

No, he's just a bad general...there are such things, you know?

By "control the area" I mean just that - I can't explain it further as it should be self-explanatory. It is like grabbing the high ground of Cemetary Ridge at Gettysburg in 1863...its a position that if you hold it, you control the area, no matter what else is going on around you.

As for justifications - I'll just point out one: Saddam's military was not permitted to open fire on coalition forces for any reason whatsoever...that is what a cease fire is for...as soon as Saddam's troops opened fire, we were fully justified in resuming hostilities. This is just one of many reasons for liberating Iraq.

Saddam was never made out to be an imminent threat.

dbogdan,

Well, seeing as your are a person I greatly respect, I'll have to conceed that I didn't put my best rhetorical foot forward...but the intent was not to sabre rattle, but enunciate as clearly as possible how asinine it would be for Iran to actually challenge us...but they are all set to challenge us because the so-called "anti-war" movement LOOKS like it is running the boards in the United States. In our enemy's eyes, it is only a matter of time before we bug out ala Saigon in 1975.

If I sound a bit heated, then the reason for that is that I am a bit hot under the collar about this - I'm angered that the left in this country is about to cause yet another pile of corpses. If folly only harmed fools, then it would never be a problem...but these leftwing fools are playing dice with men's lives, and purely for political purposes.

It is disgusting, and I don't like it.

extra,

You are entirely misreading why I put that up - I put it up to give a comparison of the relative power of each side...Iran challenging us is like a 12 year old challenging the heavyweight champion of the world to a boxing match.

Unless the Iranian leaders are completely insane, the only reason we can come up with for their bellicose behaviour is that they think they will win a fight between Iran and the United States...this is just stupid; but here it goes.

People are going to die...and, in my view, it is going to be the anti-war left's fault.

Mark - I understand, and what I'm trying to tell you is that if you are the heavyweight champion of the world, then you smile and talk to that little boy. Maybe hold his head and let him swing til he gets tired. Perhaps you give him a little spanking. Then you send him to his room.

You don't say "Hey you little %*$%* pipsqueek! You better shut up or I'll knock you back to the 9th century! How DARE you speak up to a big, strong champion like me, you little piece of %$^#@! You should TREMBLE and COWER when I come into the room!"

That would be the response of a deeply troubled, immature or insecure person, not a leader. Do you understand the difference? That is also the kind of sentiment that fuels an endless political pissing match that will cause us trillions of dollars and countless lives.

Perhaps you don't understand. Do you have any actual leadership experience to draw from? Have you led a team or an organization? Dealt with the ambition and criticism of those below you trying to move up? This sort of dynamic is common in any organization. I know Matt's just a kid, but I thought you brought experience and wisdom to the blog.

I'm confident that the administration will succeed diplomatically with Iran. Condi is a very level-headed and wise Secratary of State. She'll be tough, but also look for ways for Iran to back down while saving face. That's how great leaders operate.

extra,

Well, I pray that you are right, but I believe that you have a rather naive view of things...the Iranians are not just puffing themselves up and looking for attention - they are determined to dominate the middle east and believe that we are cowards who are about to quit.

Do lay this to heart: There will be war between the United States and Iran, and this will happen because the Iranian leaders, taking note of our anti-war people and defeatist Democrats, think we haven't the stomach for a fight. They know full well that materially they are outweighed, but they believe they have the moral edge...just as the Germans and the Japanese did in WWII.

A unified America - an America where politics ends at the water's edge - would confront Iran not just with our overwhelming might, but with a unity of purpose which would make them never dare challenge the enormous odds against them in the material sphere.

I guess I failed to make my point clear in the original post - I hope I have done so now.

Deleted - insulted author of post (we'll put up with a lot here, but this is really going too far...get your own blog, if thats the way you want to be).

Mark,

RE: "A unified America - an America where politics ends at the water's edge - would confront Iran not just with our overwhelming might, but with a unity of purpose which would make them never dare challenge the enormous odds against them in the material sphere."

Absolutely right! Why is it that liberals can't comprehend something as simple as this? Lack of a good traditional education perhaps?

Brokeback,

RE: "I am confused, how can people be labeled defeatist when according to Mark we have already achieved a stunning victory? Is the war over or not? Make up your mind for once and quit playing both sides; have some flippin integrity."

Yes Brokeback, you are confused! What part of the English language is it that you don't comprehend? Considering the number of posts you've made on numerous topics at this blog, you must have read at least a few posts and explanations other than your own. If you haven't figured out what we are talking about by now, then I would suggest that you go back through all of the posts relating to Iraq and do some self-help remedial studying! Until then, any attempt at additional explanations for your benefit would not benefit anyone -- especially you!

I don't know if "defeatist" is the best term to describe you and the liberal Democrats, but it IS quite accurate!

extramedium,

I think you missed the point of Mark's analogy.

It is strength, not weakness, that is more likely to act as a deterrent. Any perceived weakness, including an apparent lack of willingness or will to fight only encourages a weaker opponent to attack or give it serious consideration... just like the terrorists in Iraq!

A rational person or a rational nation isn't likely to attack or confront an overwhelmingly stronger and superior opponent unless they are suicidal, or they believe their opponent is wavering in their desire, willingness, or will to fight back! In that case, it is the mental weakness or lack of will of the strong that will defeat the much superior and stronger person or nation!

By giving the appearance that they will not fight, a physically superior and much stronger person or nation may actually encourage or provoke a fight. By appearing weak willed, the stronger person or nation may very well mislead the weaker opponent into believing that they can win the fight, causing them to misjudge the situation, and actually lead to a physical -- perhaps fatal -- confrontation!

Who is a thug more likely to attack... a 6 foot tall healthy 300 pound body builder? ...or a frail weak looking person?

(A 12 year old boy might just challenge the heavyweight champion of the world to a fight... if he happens to have a gun or nuclear weapon in his hip pocket! There are in fact 12 year olds who would shoot and kill a person or heavyweight champ without giving it a second thought.)

AAR

inquisitor, you remind me of the lib who earnestly explained to me that the Arabs were, of course, mad at us because we are taking all their oil.

OK, it makes sense to a lib. Because, I guess, they were eating all that oil, and drinking it, and swimming in it, building houses out of it, and keeping their camels nicely greased up. And now, now that we are buying it, they have to settle for cars and airplane trips and meat and water and all sorts of stuff they would not have had to put up with if only we had left them their oil.

But to anyone who thinks we are goading the Arab world into attacking us, in a way, he is right. It's just that he is wrong about how, exactly, we are goading them.

They don't want to kill us because we "take their oil". (In fact, they would get REALLY PO'd if we suddenly quit buying it.) They don't want to kill us because we are "tramping around over there" or however INQ so eloquently put it. The only reason they want to kill us is because we are not them.

And when the 'infidels" (non-Muslims) are all wiped out, they will go after the not-enough Muslims, the women who drive or the men who let them, the ones who don't cover their faces or object to the stoning of women whose husbands just want them out of the way.

I had a father in law who was the kind of Christian who did not hesitate to explain to me that of all the people who had ever lived, throughout history, the only ones who were truly saved were the ones in his little New Mexico fundamentalist speaking-in-tongues sect, of about 30. But as he talked,it came down to the fact that the other 28 were probably not as saved as he and his girlfriend, Earlene---and just between him and me, he wasn't all that sure about Earlene.

And the radical Muslims make him look like a Unitarian.

Bob, FYI,one of the plans the Pentagon has worked on, one of their What-Ifs, is What If some country had enough material for one bomb, not enough to test one and then build one or two if the test was succesful? What could that country do?

And one thing that country could do is mount that bomb, the untested one, on a SCUD or similar rocket and send it out over the U.S. to explode (or not) in space. Their war gaming was how to defend against, and recover from, a release of electromagnetic energy powerful enough to wipe out the electircal supply, and motors and machinery and electronics, of a significant area of the United States. One estimate was that it could take as long as two months to get power supplies up and running again, and the computers would be toast, as would other unshielded electronics. (Got a computer running your car? I do.)

Alarmist? Possibly. I for one am glad the military is progressive enough, and creative enough, to think outside the box, and not count on the other guy being predicatble and doing the expected.

But the moral of this little tale is, don't discount the destructive ability of a country which is eager to harm another, based on an assumption that it will use conventional weapons in conventional ways, or feel confined by old ways of thinking.

I think of "medium" as another word for "average".

Ask an Iraqi "Do you want the Americans to leave?" and you will have a poll stating overwhelming numbers saying "Yes". Try asking Iraqis "WHEN do you want the Americans to leave?" and you get something along the lines of "When we are secure, with a trained army and police force, and can combat the terrorists on our own."
See a difference? The pollsters do, which is why they are so careful how they phrase their questions, and why it is so important to know what the questions are before you get all wound up about the answers.

Iran is approximately 70% aged 30 or younger, and that is a demographic that is increasingly pro-Western, less theocracy-inclined (or tolerant) and certainly not willing to be toasted to play out some kook's massive ego trip. There is a school of thought that a revolution in Iran is not far off. Colin Powell, in one of the few courageous things he said while Secretary of State, made a public statement that if there was a revolution in Iran, we would support it. I am sure that if he went public with that statement, there was a lot going on behind the scenes as well.

it is certainly possible that a very strong and aggressive stance toward Iran is also a way to get this group off the bubble, to pressure the majority of the country to get rid of their loony tunes dictator, the one dragging them kicking and screaming toward Armageddon.

It is an absolute certainty that an aggressive stance would carry more weight if it were not for the cringing appeasement faction, plus the anti-Bushies who would gleefully throw their entire country under a bus if it would make Bush look bad or just give them a little ammuntion to use against him.

You'd think that after being on the wrong side of history every single time, the libs would want to be right for a change.

*
"Saddam was never made out to be an imminent threat.

Is there anything you are not willing to lie about?"

**************

President Bush made a speech regarding his intent to invade Iraq in which he said that while the threat posed by Sadaam was not imminent, if we waited for it to become imminent, it would be too late.

"not imminent" = NOT IMMINENT. Except in LibSpeak, where evidently it can mean anything any lib decides it means that day, at that time, for that purpose.

And quitcher whining about not getting a link to Rasmussen. Type it in and go there, or shut up. The thing is, you can't argue the facts, so you have to try to pretend there is an argument in the presentation.

AAR - Ok, I get it now. We're going to get in a big war with Iran and there are going be piles of corpses and it all will be the liberals fault because:

1. The liberals are too scared to fight.
2. Shifty Britain said it won't help with a war on Iran.
3. The French are pussies.
4. Bush has low approval ratings.
5. The mainstream media hates Bush.
6. Radical muslim want to kill all Christians.
7. There are 100 million radical Muslims.
8. Heavyweight fighters shouldn't trust