Alright. Fine, Mark. But let me make a request: all Republican warmongores MUST enlist their kids to serve, and quit using ours as the sacrificial lamb.

Otherwise, all the flag waving phonies can take thier pro-American rants and shove 'em up thier a#$.

"War is the only answer at this point -"-MN

What in Hades are we waiting for? the November election, perhaps? How many times does screwboy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to repeat that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" before we do something about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities??? Dr.Thomas Sowell's new article on this subject should be required reading for all Washington politicians:

Point of no return?
Towhhall.com
Tuesday, August 22, 2006

It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.

Read the whole thing.

"Alright. Fine, Mark. But let me make a request: all Republican warmongores MUST enlist their kids to serve, and quit using ours as the sacrificial lamb.

Otherwise, all the flag waving phonies can take thier pro-American rants and shove 'em up thier a#$.
" ~teenage liberal

Welcome to the nature of the all-volunteer armed services. Your choice in the matter is whether or not you sign up to serve in them. You do not get to pick and choose which conflicts you will serve in after the fact.

i want to see every single warmonger on this site get their as*es down to the recruiting station immediately.

so many of us are sick and tired of this outlandish warmongering. why not north korea while we're at it? so long as i am assured you're participating noonon.

The libs have compared Hitler to Bush so much they can't believe anybody could be worse. I wonder if Iran attacks, will they get their as*es down to the recruiting station immediately, like some of us already did? I kind of doubt it, they'll be too busy blogging about how Bush failed. This just goes to show you how the liberty loving left loves liberty except when it means they can't tell people what to do, even when they want to tell people to risk their lives. But Osama's the problem, not liberals, because that's what he does. Right.

If Mark is right that attacking Iran is inevitable (and I don't think he is), it's tragic that we are being "rope-a-doped" in Iraq and isolated from our allies while the greater threat was always right next door in Iran.

i wonder what our troops in the ground so precariously close to iran missiles might feel about a little "liberation campaign" over the border in iran? what supremely myopic thinking goes on around these parts. got a problem? toss a few bombs. don't worry about clean-up or consequences or civilian deaths or US troop deaths or spiking oil prices or further mid-east escalation...nah - just toss some bombs and plug your ears and sing hallelujah while waiting for the children to run out and put flowers in our gun barrels!!!!

So, TL just how many kids do you have that are old enough for military service?

Hint; stop typing the donk talking points verbatim, it gives you away.

teenie,

More libbie nonsense!

We have a volunteer Army (military). Please explain to your pacifist terrorist-hugging friends that if they don't want to fight, don't sign up and don't expect a paycheck. Even a libbie should be able to understand something as simple as that!

If you know of any conscripts who were shanghaied against their will, please inform the authorities and the liberal news organizations so that we can investigate the matter.

AAR

orangealert,

I think our troops will be happy to see the U.S. drop a few bombs on the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps that will keep the Iranians busy so they will stop supporting and supplying the terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon who are killing our troops and blowing up Iraqi and Israeli families!

The anti-American U.N. can't (won't) stop Iran and Syria from supplying Hezbollah. The anti-American U.N. can't (won't) stop Iran from developing nuclear bombs and missiles. The anti-American U.N. hasn't even expressed "concern" about Iran supplying the terrorists in Iraq with advanced components for IEDs to blow up our troops.

Why should the anti-American U.N. do anything? Iran and terrorists are only attacking America and Israel -- for now!!!

AAR

“Alright. Fine, Mark. But let me make a request: all Republican warmongores MUST enlist their kids to serve, and quit using ours as the sacrificial lamb.

Otherwise, all the flag waving phonies can take thier pro-American rants and shove 'em up thier a#$.”
Posted by: teenage liberal at August 22, 2006 03:16 AM

OR tl we could go with plan “B”. We could use a different approach and send all of the liberals and their children to the problem countries who would then go door-to-door to talk and negotiate. At least then we have a chance that things won’t escalate, right? Hey, we might even have a break through and get the fanatic radicals to change their mind, lay down their arms and embrace the US, Israel and our allies. I’m sure you could convince them and influence them. After all, you’ve had such an impressive record on convincing voters to allow liberals control of either house or the Presidency with such articulate logic, reasoning and direction! AND I’m sure it would all happen expediently as you insist on holding this administration to a rather immediate time table.

Otherwise all the gutless “cut and run” cowards can take their anti-American rants and stick it.

For me, I think I’ll go with plan “A” even if that means brave men and women (voluntarily!!!) risk their lives that allow you to hang around and complain. That is unless you too have so much hatred as to want the destruction of this administration, our country and our allies.

perhaps the anti-war left should all join sheehan in her "hunger strike" or move to Canada (like they said they would after 2000 and 2004) or go to Iraq and become human shields, join the Peace Corps...

there are plenty of ways they can do more than just talk the talk... but they won't.

War is not the only answer, however, it does need to be an option. Diplomacy with Iran is likely to be fruitless, however, it may be able to work with Russia and China. Get them to stop supporting Iran and Iran becomes much easier to neutralize. If Iran is stopped, much our problems in Iraq become easier to solve.

I think we need a larger force structure in Iraq. This might be able to project a credible threat against Iran. To date, there have been no consequences for Iran's support of terrorism. Having a larger force in Iraq could project a credible threat to Iran and might make them less bold. In any event, we need it should the military oprion become the only option avaliable.

Finally, we should make every effort to support those inside of Iran who support overthrowing the government from within. I don't think we have reached the situation where war is the only answer, however, the option should be available. With that in mind, we should start working to increase the size and strength of the military now.

TL,

Given your age, when you were born I was already serving our country in the United States Navy.

Start showing at least a little bit of respect for an old veteran, ok?

Orange,

Because NK isn't the larger threat. Iran is.

I still don't see why you on the left think "well, why don't we fight B, C and D at the same time" is a clever argument...its rather stupid, and it makes you look foolish when you make it.

We won't attack Iran until after the November elections. Frankly, unless the military doubles its recruiting goals, we won't have that much of a force to attack with (considering our current engagements).

What we really need is for Europe to get off of their asses and defend their own self-interests.

Georgia

You are so right about Europe!! The US, Israel, Britian, and Australia are having to carry most of the weight of the defense of the free world. Also, I think you are right about the military recruitment goals. They will need to be increased substantially.

The European countries can't or won't even do something as simple as put together a decent sized security force for Lebanon.

Georgia- I ground invasion is out of the question. We have more than enough special forces as well as air and naval power to hit the targets we need to.
Orange- Iran's missiles will be the least of our soldier's problem. Israel has more to worry about in that aspect. For those that feel Al Sadr's forces will rise up, think about the last time that happened when we started killing about 500 of them a day.
Iran is making the same miscalculations that started WWI. Why you libs cannot see that Iran is pushing the issue I'll never know. Do any of you believe that Iran should ignore international treaties and continue a nuke program? How do you feel about the IAEA inspectors being kicked out? Surely that was not Bush's fault was it?

Don't we already have enough on our plate right now.
We're fighting two wars with little success in each and you want to attack another country. My personal feeling is that if we attack Iran, the entire middle east would errupt into something that we couldn't possibly handle.

Having to listen to liberal kids discuss foreign policy is like going to Osama Bin Laden for lessons on the merits of Christianity.

If the libs want only those in the military to get to decide what happens in this country- it is fine with me.

Lt. fishman,
you said "If the libs want only those in the military to get to decide what happens in this country- it is fine with me."

I don't think that is what they were implying. I think they were saying that all the people who are
always talking war, war, war should stand up and
participate instead of sitting behind their cozy computers.

all Republican warmongores MUST enlist their kids to serve, and quit using ours as the sacrificial lamb.

What a bunch of baloney, TL. No one "enlists" their kids, the kids, if of age, goes down and volunteers, if they are of a mind.

If you took the time to check with Active Duty troops, you just might find that the majority are Conservatives.

On top of that, do you even realize that many of us Conservatives already served, many seeing combat?

Lstly, it isn't "warmonger." It is "Freedom Supporters."

all Republican warmongores MUST enlist their kids to serve, and quit using ours as the sacrificial lamb.

What a bunch of baloney, TL. No one "enlists" their kids, the kids, if of age, goes down and volunteers, if they are of a mind.

If you took the time to check with Active Duty troops, you just might find that the majority are Conservatives.

On top of that, do you even realize that many of us Conservatives already served, many seeing combat?

Lastly, it isn't "warmonger." It is "Freedom Supporters."

Jeff777,

And just where are those wars we are fighting?

Take a look at the map. We're fighting terrorists in Iraq. We're fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. We have ships in the Persian Gulf filled with airplanes, cruise missiles, and bombs. We have bases throughout the region filled with jet fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs, bunker buster bombs, and who knows what else.

And what is located right square in the middle of our troops, planes, ships, bombs, and missiles? Why... Iran!!! And, if Syria wants to step up to the bar, Iraq (and our troops) are on one side and Israel is on the other, but this time, Israel won't be holding back on their attacks. We will see the real Israeli military and it's capabilities in action!

We won't be invading Iran with our troops. Iran's problems will come from above... but it won't be those 70 virgins! If Iran wants to return fire thinking they can over run our troops, I don't think there will be a "measured liberal pacifist" response either... there's always "glassification"!

Our problem in dealing with Iran, North Korea, and terrorists aren't with our military. Our problems are with the anti-American liberal left who, for now, have sapped America's will and resolve to fight back. Another major terrorist attack will re-awaken the complacent majority and we will take action. Our problem isn't with our enemies overseas... our problems are with our enemies within!

When liberal Democrats ask why we haven't done anything militarily against Iran (yet), all they need do is look in the mirror and they will be staring our problem right in the face. Liberals and their constant Bush-bashing, anti-Americanism, anti-military propaganda are what has [temporarily] hurt our efforts to stop Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Liberals and their naive pacifist mentality have weakened America's resolve and ability to deal effectively with our enemies.

And if our diplomats are going to have a chance to succeed and avoid a real war, our enemies must know BEYOND ANY DOUBT that if the diplomatic efforts fail, there WILL BE MILITARY ACTION! Diplomacy works when it is backed by strength, not by liberal weakness. Right now, liberal Dimocrats have the world convinced that American has been de-fanged by our ultra-left liberal Dimocrats.

That perceived weakness -- created by liberal Dimocrats -- has emboldened Iran, Syria, and North Korea. That perceived weakness -- created by liberal Dimocrats -- has made the world a much more dangerous place -- and one that could very well see nuclear attacks from Iran or North Korea if liberals are allowed to continue to mislead Americans!

Let's hope Iran isn't fooled into thinking that President Bush won't eventually take the necessary action -- IN SPITE OF THE LIBERAL DIMOCRATS!!!

AAR

If the United States were to use the full force of its might it could and would wipe out all the countries that are creating threats right now. We are, instead, treading lightly, and giving every other possible course a chance.

This discretion is, of course, used as an accusation against Bush (too few troops in Iraq!!!!!) just as more overt action would be (too many troops in Iraq!!!)

So the first thing to do is to simply dismiss any of the whining from the radical neo-Left fellow travelers. Listening to them would be like going to the Clintons for marriage counseling. Accept the fact that there is absolutely no possible action or outcome which would make them happy, if it originated in the Bush Administration.

And such an action will not protect only conservatives. The ever-whining, ever-griping, ever-negative frawgs and larrys and oranges (just one step away from yellow, I point out...) and the pretend teenager, all of you will be safer too.

Not fair, I know, but that's the way it is......

Frawg is too too right when he says:

"What we really need is for Europe to get off of their asses and defend their own self-interests."

Right after we invaded Iraq, Dave Letterman hit it on the head when he said we should not be surprised that France would not fight to get a dictator out of another country---they wouldn't even fight to get a dictator out of their OWN country.

What was the story about the great deal, post-WW II, on French rifles? They were in great condition---they'd never been fired, and only dropped once.

Frawg---did you read about the interview with Ted Nugent?

He was being interviewed by a British journalist. The journalist
asked, "What do you think the last thought is in the head of a deer before you shoot it? Is it, "Are you my friend?" or is it "Are you the
one who killed my brother?"

Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to
screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away.

They are very much like the French in that way."

TL,

Given your age, when you were born I was already serving our country in the United States Navy.

Start showing at least a little bit of respect for an old veteran, ok?
Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 22, 2006 11:38

Mark,
Why request respect from TL? He/she has never demonstrated the art of respect here before.
The "appeasement policy" doesn't work!!
It would be better idea to hold TL to the same standards that are required of everyone.
Being a teenager doesn't excuse one to be ignorant and insulting!

Almiranta,
I read the Nugent interview, great answer to a stupid question!
Reminds me of the perky Katie Couric, she asked a marine what he feels when he shoots at insurgents.
His reply: recoil

BSOD....

TL,

Given your age, when you were born I was already serving our country in the United States Navy.

Start showing at least a little bit of respect for an old veteran, ok?

Mark,

Let me say that if I had insulted you in anyway with my comment, then I appologise.

But let me restate my point again. Why is it that people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and others keep asking to stay in Iraq, call those who oppose it and want our troops out of harm's way cowards, cut-and-runners and unpatriotic, when that same group would:

a) never parttake in any fighting themselves and

b) never send thier kids to war, but would ask others(mostly the middle and lower class kids who, in some situations, don't have a choice but to serve to avoid poverty)to fight their battles.

If these people really did support this war, they would be the first to sign themselves up or send their kids to fight, instead of sitting behind a desk, spouting off the 'liberals are cowards and cut-and-runners' mantra.

Rich-

No matter how strong our navy and airforce gets, wars will always be won by boots on the ground...

If these people really did support this war, they would be the first to sign themselves up or send their kids to fight,

Another ridiculous statement.

TL, you would do better stating your own thoughts and drop the day to day talking points from the anti-war left.

One last time, NO ONE IS SENT! It is an all volunteer force today, has been ever since 1973.

Military Service itself is not a precursor to Public Office. If it were, we wouldn’t have had Clinton for 8 years. Uh, lest you forget, he too sent troops off into harm’s way while ignoring the real threat, Terrorism from the Middle East. Where were you then? Where was the anti-war left?

There are Public Officials whose children, nieces and nephews have joined and fought and even died. They, like all others VOLUNTEERED! There were not forced to join to avoid poverty. If you think that is why people join, may I suggest you join and see just how lousy Military pay is!

Unlike past times, the Military today has fairly high standards. Not just anyone can qualify to join and then, they still don’t draw equal pay to a civilian counter-part. Any that might have joined for other reasons have completed their enlistments by now and have left the Services, if they were so inclined. If, like Casey Sheehan, they reenlisted, they did so after the war started and know full well what they face. Still, those that have hold a sense of duty and honor that few others ever know.

If you are worried about being drafted and “sent off,” better start voting Republican. So far, it has only been Democrats trying to reinstate the draft for the Military, Reps. Conyers and Rankle.

As for those you ask about, Rush, Cheney, Hannity and DeLay are all over the maximum age limit. In the case of Rush and Cheney, both are physically unfit due to Cheney’s heart problems and Rush’s inoperable pilonidal cyst. So, how better to show support than to speak out for the troops?

By the same token, why listen to protesters that never served either? Do they even know what they are talking about? Or, do they have other reasons they don’t want known?

TL,

Why oppose a war that helps to save those middle and lower class children and families that you talk about?

Why not praise the troops for the fine job that they are doing to help save YOU?

Where would we possibly be right now if the president had not decided to protect this Great land of Freedom?

I thank God for the Presidents courage to stand up to you guys on the left!!

Jeremiah

Rich and Georgia,

I think a war against a small weak country can probably be won by air power alone. I'm thinking of Bosnia, however, Iraq and Iran are not small weak countries. I have no doubt that the air force could take out Iran's nuclear sites. This assumes we know where they are. I suspect we have a good idea. The problem with that is two fold: 1.) It will only set Iran's nuclear ambitions back a few years. It will not stop them. 2.) A bombing raid against Iran's nuclear facilities may set off a back lash against us elsewhere in the region that we do not have enough troops to control.

The best long range solution is regime change. Preferably this would be done by pro-western and pro-American forces in the country or at least by anyone other than Islamic extremists or their Communists allies. We should try to provide the resistance to the mullahs what ever help we can.

For a ground invasion to be viable, we would need a significantly larger Army than we currently have. The Army would need to be large enough to handle Iran, as well as any other issues in the Middle East that might arise as a result of the invasion. A ground invasion of Iran would probably have repercussions elsewhere in the middle east.

It seems the most realistic course of action, at the moment, is to support pro-western forces within Iran. Even this has risks. No matter what policy we choose there will be risks associated with it.

There is another way that I mention elsewhere. Use diplomacy to get Russia and China to withdraw support from Iran. If this can be done, Iran should be much easier to neutralize.

At some point, I suspect Israel will take out Iran's nuclear sites. This would be the only option avaliable to them. Iran with nuclear weapons is a survival threat to Israel. When Israel makes their move, the US should be prepared to stand with them.

It is fascinating to watch the liberal mindset in action. "Bush failed by attacking Iraq, because now we don't have the strength to engage the REAL threats like NK and Iran." And now that we're looking at Iran, "We can't engage Iran because that's just distracting from the real threat posed by NK." The same libs who currently argue that Bush failed by letting the NKs get nukes without intervening militarily are now arguing that Bush shouldn't intervene in Iran militarily to stop Iran from getting nukes.

Somebody asked whether our troops in Iraq want to get bombed by Iranians. I have a few answers. First, I think they'd rather duck and cover from more conventional arms than from a nuke. Second, have you seen anything about the Raptor? It can take out five of our top other fighters with no fuss, so I think it can handle anything Russia or China's sold to Iran. But I'm sure you'd like to wait until they have stealth so that it's not giving our soldiers an unfair advantage. Third, how many of the 2,000 something soldiers who've given their lives did so to foreign fighters from Iran? My guess is our soldiers would like a chance to be the ones who ambush for a change, to stop those foreign fighters at the source.

Poster,
Regime change would be a difficult option. Iran's prez technically won their last election, though since the left didn't bug the UN about sending Jimmy Carter to watch their elections, or hardly any other inspectors, we don't really know where the Iranian people stand. Certainly we would have to destroy not just Iran's prez but the organization of mullahs behind him, and that would likely flare up more violence by Muslims against us.

Don't miss my point, I think we do need to get him out of power and destroy their nuclear facility, but we have to be prepared for an escalation in insurgency and terrorism against us around the globe. Considering Iran is already acting to make that a reality, I'm not sure it will be that much worse, only it will force many of them to respond before they are fully prepared.

As a nation, I think we have to be prepared for a reality most non-military people are not prepared for, fighting against a nation and its people. And if the Islamic nations did see this as the straw proving American occupation and imperialism, we may find airbases difficult to come by, north of Diego Garcia. But the threat here is real, and immediate. And if they're going to come after us, it's better now than after Pakistan gets their big new reactor rolling too. It may be time for Muslims in the Middle East to stand with us or against us.