Except the Libs don't really care about the deaths of our military or Iraquis. That was simply the most sane reason they could come up with to follow their yellow to the core genetic makeup. The bottom line is these guys are for cut and run period. Care for the troops? How about spit on them, proclaim them murderers in cold blood. That is the mentality of the Democrats. So the numbers don't matter. They will move back to Bush lied or find another reason, such as there is no political reconcilation. Their other previous reason to leave other than Bush lied, too many soldier deaths was it's a civil war! Or maybe back to war for oil, BushHitler, or the Cheney Halliburton connection. What a pathetic group of protoplasm.

CO, how are the nonsmoking Canadians, smoking Muslims doing in your bend over to dhimitude country canada [sic] doing?

Krauthamer: This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground.

And here I thought the Democrats caused the problems on the ground, rather than reacted to them. Of course, that formulation never made much sense to me.

Anyway, despite Mark's rather advantageous use of statistics, September has been a good month in Iraq on almost every metric. I hope and pray that they will be able string many more months together that are even better -- like, into infinity. It has long been my opinion, voiced several times, that Americans in general are not so much averse to a prolonged engagement, they are averse to prolonged lack of progress.

And here I thought the Democrats caused the problems on the ground, rather than reacted to them. Of course, that formulation never made much sense to me. - rico

Ah but they did Rico. AQ and Iran are very well aware of the political debate inside the US. They knew that the bomb du jour would make front page news and would renew calls of retreat amongst the Democrats, and they played that game well. Each and everytime the Democrats did not disappoint them, which in effect, encouraged AQ and Iran to continue.

I just finished reading "Lone Survivor". Wow.

I highly recommend it. Admittedly not much about Iraq as it mostly takes place at Coronado and Afghanistan. I think that Marcus Luttrell's opinions about the press and the liberal establishment are pretty much spot on. And I'm one of those people that still respect a Navy Cross and value the opinions of a person wearing one.

The disturbing thing is that all the liberal sentiment will not just disappear in 2009 when Bush is gone. They truly have surrendered to appeasement. They push peace at all cost, and will lose liberty and freedom along with it. Peace is noble, but, it takes two to tango. Countries like Iran and groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc, are very bad dancers.

What is the message from the Extreme Left to our Military in Iraq?
‘Hang in there, we will get you home soon. You can come home, put your weapons away in the Arms Room, stow away all your protective gear, and park your vehicle in the Motor Pool. You and your family will be protected by the Boarder Patrol and over-extended local law enforcement. Rest easy; just for your protection we have our best intelligence personnel working with the above mentioned enforcement personnel and Homeland Security. Additional reassurance for you, your family, and the Americans you were never really protecting (misinformed by the President and Executive Branch) we are establishing the dialog technique in place of weaponry to end these disagreements between us and Al Qiada. With all the excellent areas above we can do this without loss of life or, most importantly, spending money we want to use here at home.
The military are not fools, only sheep who follow the “Prophets of MoveOn” would be that naïve.

neocon, William Teach, SEW,

ABSOLUTELY ! ! !

AAR

Having France help in trying to pressure Iran into halting their plans for a nuclear weapon is excellent news. We must use all diplomatic pressure possible to have a peaceful solution to the Iranian problem. The bluster of war with Iran I think is just that, bluster. The intent of this bluster is scaring Iran into bowing to the international call to stop their nuclear aims. Launching attacks from the air or sea against Iran presently would be a mistake of biblical proportions. True it could initially be done with great success with little loss of american lives but what happens after the bombs are dropped. We will then be at war with an even more formidable foe without the ground troops necessary to stop all out war in the middle east. Even Admiral Fallon and General Casey agree we do not have the forces to fight the Iranians now.

See this blog post by Glenn Greenwald. I know he is a raving liberal but he sites military sources that say Iranian war would be a disaster.

http://salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

If you care to read the post it is the second one, so scroll down.

Sycophant Savior

General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington—if not in Baghdad.

by Andrew J. Bacevich

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

This is a bit off thread but about the GWOT. The above title and article from THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE is a very interesting read. Should the senate vote again to condem this publication for calling Petraeus a sycophant?

Is anyone else getting the feeling that some on the Left (the near Left, not far Left) are beginning to realize the consequences of losing? I think by November 4th, 2008 the far Left is going to find out just how small a minority they really are.

don't think so, spook. though wishful thinking's fun AND inexpensive.

hopefully we'll have all those "phony soldiers" (limbaughTM) back before election time - who knows, just may help you guys retain a seat or two.

Teach: Countries like Iran and groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc, are very bad dancers.

To be sure. So the question becomes... do you try to teach them to dance or do you try to kill them?

I presume that most people realize that neither option can be attempted in a vacuum, and neither can be achieved to perfection. Carrots aren't very useful without sticks, and vice versa.

Conscriptor...You abject moron...just as stupid as Kerry, Pallone and Schakowsky.
Those idiots raced to the floor of the Congress to denounce Rush..and of ALL people,. Kerry, who in another era would still be in the brig!!!!!
That was not what he said at all....TRY and keep up will you...I know it's hard...but try!!!

Slightly OT, I was watching Fox News @ 3 AM when they were discussing the offer Saddam made through channels in 2003 that he would leave Iraq for $1.0B, provided he could take the WMD plans and “papers” with him.

Unclear if Bush considered this offer, presented this offer to anyone else, rejected this offer, or dismissed it out of hand.

The story concerns me, if true what were the considerations to reject the offer? And if Saddam didn’t have WMD why make this a condition? If done through back-door channels why would he assume that his WMD charade would be exposed? Did he believe there was WMD?

What, also is there potential political ramifications and, more to the point, would this, if true be grounds for impeachment?

DL -

a related link to that story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414_pf.html

Thanks for the link, I vaguely remember this story surfacing a few years back; it seems to me there was more to this than the WaPo article indicates. Anyone remember why this story died the first time?

Nope, different story, here's the "exile" story I remember.

S'pose Saddam was shopping around this offer in the days leading up to the invasion? That puts a different wrinkle on the Wa-Po story this week.

Dasein: The story concerns me, if true what were the considerations to reject the offer? And if Saddam didn’t have WMD why make this a condition? If done through back-door channels why would he assume that his WMD charade would be exposed? Did he believe there was WMD?

What, also is there potential political ramifications and, more to the point, would this, if true be grounds for impeachment?

To answer your questions: Because Saddam was an inveterate liar. Because there was no other existing power structure than his Baathist cohorts (it wouldn't be the first time the Baathists failed, then succeeded later). Yes. No. And finally... no -- not in and of itself anyway.

In most respects this revelation is nothing more than new old news. In other words, there have always been credible reports that Saddam offered to step down. This just fleshes them out a bit. It also serves to illustrate once again how much of a box Saddam was in, and the breadth of alternatives that may have opened up were we inclined to postpone the invasion for a while. Finally, it also adds substance to the reason why so many in Europe and elsewhere were urging patience. Because Saddam was in such a freakin' box.

Don't come here as often. Looking at the threads it looks like a lot of Neocons agreeing with each other on the civil war, health care and environment. At 32% you might have been worth a comment, but at 29% what is the point.

conscriptor, just so you don't end up looking stupid, the "phony soldiers" Rush was referring to were guys such as Jesse McBeth. Look him up if you want to know what a "phony soldier" is. Or go to www.americablog.com if you want to see what a hate site does with a comment taken out of context by Media Matters for America, a Soros-funded "media watchdog" group who targets only conservatives/Republicans.

It has long been my opinion, voiced several times, that Americans in general are not so much averse to a prolonged engagement, they are averse to prolonged lack of progress.

Excellent opinion, if I say so myself. However, the left totally twists the mood of the American people to mean that "70% of Americans are anti-war and want us out of Iraq." They're wrong on both counts--100% of Americans are anti-war, and most of the people want us out of Iraq when the mission is completed.

But you can't convince these lobotomized blockheads of anything, so it's no use trying...

"strong, allied military action against Iran" WHAT allies??? Name another country (other than Israel) that sould join us. "long enough for us to finish up in Iraq and bring the troops home crowned with victory." How many dead Americans and Iraqis will this crown cost??? Is it worth 10,000 dead and another 30,000 shattered bodies and minds?

conscriptor,

You realize (probably not, you're just repeating DNC/DU/Kos talking points) that Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth, whom FoxNews characterized as a "phony soldier", who is facing federal charges of falsifying his record.

But you bought the liberal lie - hook, line, and sinker. As did nearly every liberal blog and website.

Macbeth is a "phoney soldier". He washed out of bootcamp. He never was a Ranger. He never served in Iraq. He never participated in the attrocities that he fabricated. They were all lies. And the left bought those lies, as well as the ones of Scott Beauchamp, hook, line, and sinker.

Is is telling that the left will call the General in charge of the Iraqi campaign a liar and a betrayer, while taking no time to check the credibility of the Jesse Macbeth's of the world. They wanted Macbeth's lies to be true. They hate the military because those serving in uniform are true patriots, unlike most of those on the left.

A-10

What do think of the American Conservative calling Petreaus a sychophant? Also, I listened to the Rush bit and read the transcript. He was referencing the Jesse Macbeths of the world but I could see how some who hate Rush would take it the way they did. It reminds me of the John Kerry bothced joke about being dumb and getting stuck in Iraq. People could ascribe their own meaning to what was being said. They both weren't totally clear in how it was presented. It was interesting how the oh so sexy Dana Perino, said the President wouldn't have used those words, in reference to "phony soldiers".

plainjane, The Democrat majority Congress is at 11% approval rating! Much too high in my opinion, but parrots have learning deficiencies. What's the point?

SEW: plainjane, The Democrat majority Congress is at 11% approval rating! Much too high in my opinion, but parrots have learning deficiencies. What's the point?

This question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway... the point is you have to look at the internals. Since congress is composed of both Dems and Reps (in more or less equal numbers in the present case), it's not enough to know that people think congress sucks. You also have to know why. The latter separates the parrots from the non-parrots. At least minimally.

it's not enough to know that people think congress sucks. You also have to know why.

Maybe it's because of:

- their inability to do anything constructive

- their inability to pass any meaningful legislation

- their desire to pack every deal with as much pork as possible

- their continued partisan sniping

- their declaring the war lost

- their lack of courage to condict an up or down vote on war funding

- their inability to work with republicans to craft anything bi-partisan

- their siblings who have landed very lucrative lobbying jobs.

Do you suppose it could be any of those reasons?

neocon: Do you suppose it could be any of those reasons?

Well let's just say none of them seems to explain the internals. Lol!

So the question becomes... do you try to teach them to dance or do you try to kill them?

Ricorun, we do have to do both. Military action by itself will not solve the problem, nor will threat of action. The response depends on the situation. Sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick. Sometimes the threat of the stick if they do not take the carrot. Etc and so forth.

We cannot immediately and unconditionally take the threat of force and the use of force off the table. Sometimes you have to deal with the devil you know. Sometimes you have to wack him.

We are certainly doing things in Iraq, Saudi, Pakistan, etc, to try and turn things around non-militarily, by pushing freedom, and it is working, to some degree. But we have to look at all options, except appeasement.

Posted by: Bob Blunt at September 28, 2007 03:37 PM

Mr. Blunt,

How much is freedom worth to you--1 or 300,000,000+?

One stands and the rest fall, and all is lost?...Or, everyone stands and we secure Victory; retaining our Freedom, and right to Life as Americans!!!

What's it gonna be?

If you say--300,000,000+ lives lost? That would be equal to the mind of a Terrorist ... the only difference between that and a Terrorist being fear as the motivator.

Just remember--Any Marine will tell you--'No Fear.'

So what is necessary? Do you cherish freedom? Is freedom free? If you cherish and value your freedom, then you want to do what is necessary to keep it that way, right?
Ok,If it's "free", then it must not be worth anything, right?

Not so for me ... it's worth everything to me ... my very last breath to defend it, and it's only by the Grace of God that I am fortunate enough to be blessed with it!!

I hope you'll agree!!

Jeremiah

Teach: Ricorun, we do have to do both. Military action by itself will not solve the problem, nor will threat of action. The response depends on the situation. Sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick. Sometimes the threat of the stick if they do not take the carrot. Etc and so forth.

Clearly these sorts of foreign relations/national security issues are both exceedingly difficult but also exceedingly important. Given that, and given that we are also in a presidential campaign season, who does that eliminate for you in terms of prospective candidates?

I offer the question as more rhetorical than specific to you. I have my own opinions about it right now, but I'm willing to learn more as time goes on. Nonetheless, this question is likely to remain on the front burner for me and many others, because it is the one that is most likely to be the most expensive by far in terms of both blood and treasure than any other for the foreseeable future.

because it is the one that is most likely to be the most expensive by far in terms of both blood and treasure than any other for the foreseeable future. - rico

The sounds coming from the left have certainly been eye opening lately. Just an aside, Rico, your statement is reflective of someone else who uttered much the same thing in 2003. That was the President, when he said that the WOT would be a war like no other, generational and costly.

Then to hear the top Dem POTUS candidates tell us that they would still probably have a military presence in Iraq in 2013, well that's a complete 180 from what they were saying 6 months ago. I think the moderate left is realizing that this war is winnable and needs to be won. Or it's the polls.

When faced with the possibility, well almost certainty of massive losses invading a nation of religious fanatics - Trumann chose nuclear weapons.

Kahn: When faced with the possibility, well almost certainty of massive losses invading a nation of religious fanatics - Trumann chose nuclear weapons.

What are you saying? What nation do you see as composed of predominantly religious fanatics -- as opposed to just governed by them, however tentatively? Or does it matter?

Rico, what does it matter to you? Your party wants to pull out of the region and damn the consequences. Posters here have regularly dismissed our warnings of bloodbath and a massive regional war if we do that. So - you care about that now?

Look, if its the cost that the leftists are against, well the nukes are paid for.

There will be virtually no loss of American life. Unless some idiot MSNBC or CNN reporter is there on the ground. Highly unlikely as they don't actually gather facts anymore.

And you've already stated (as a group) that you don't care about what happens to the people in the region. The weapons were developed by Democrats and first used by Democrats. There will be no future terrorists spawned from the cities and region affected. So, as with Japan.... VICTORY.

Nuclear weapons actually meet all your stated requirements, except defeat.

Gene,

"The American Conservative" is Buchanan's mouthpiece...it has nothing to do with mainstream consevatism in the United States. They are a step away from the John Birchers of yore, but only a short step.

Bob Blunt,

You tell us - how many lives are to be lost before you say, "I quit"? What level of sacrifice are you willing to allow?

Kahn: Posters here have regularly dismissed our warnings of bloodbath and a massive regional war if we do that. So - you care about that now?

I challenge you to sift through any of my past posts for anything that even suggests that I have advocated anything close to pulling out, damn the consequences.

In the mean time, kindly answer my question: "What nation do you see as composed of predominantly religious fanatics -- as opposed to just governed by them, however tentatively? Or does it matter?"

You seem to think that just because I don't advocate nuking someone (apparently you don't have the nuts to say exactly who), I'm a "liberal" or a "Democrat" or whatever label you prefer to apply. Well personally, I think an unprovoked nuclear attack is just nuts. But I'm willing to reconsider if you have the nuts to tell me who you mean, and explain in some detail why.

Mark: "The American Conservative" is Buchanan's mouthpiece...it has nothing to do with mainstream consevatism in the United States.

Oh man... really bad answer. Give it another try, okay?

Yoo!! Hooo! Oh, plain.....now, now, don't go away all mad and stuff.........don't let the door hit ya.............

SEW, Neocon, Kahn, William Teach, Mark Noonan, Matt, AAR, Retired Spook, Dasein Libsbane, A-10, Keefer and Jeremiah PLEASE READ this article which FINALLY EXPOSES the Muslim Jihad Syndicate in America.


***More scary information on the Muslim Jihadi Doctor Esam Omeish who is Chief of Surgery at a hospital in Northern Virginia and the leader of the Muslim American Society (a Muslim Brotherhood front group-which aims to destroy America and convert it to Islam under Shari'a)....

(It's the second article at the following link. Please read the whole article. Here are some highlights:)

KAINE APPOINTEE ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RADICAL “9/11” MOSQUE

WOODSTOCK, VA –– Virginia Delegate C. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock), who first alerted Governor Timothy M. Kaine to the fact that he had appointed a Muslim activist of questionable beliefs and ties to the Virginia Commission on Immigration, today questioned the process by which the Governor’s appointees are chosen.

[..] In addition to being the President of the Muslim American Society, former Kaine appointee Dr. Esam S. Omeish, currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. Among numerous questionable ties to radical Islam is the fact that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were members in the months preceding the attacks. See the 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 221, 229-230. ...

[..]In the spring of this year, the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque was infiltrated by the Mapping Sharia project [..] Imams at Dar Al-Hijrah supplied Gaubatz with violent, jihadist readings and CD’s. “They are teaching what they call Jihad Qital, which means physical jihad,” Gaubatz said. “They’re teaching violence and hatred of the United States . . . (t)he ultimate goal for those at Dar Al-Hijrah is to instill Sharia law in the U.S. and have America adhere to the Islamic faith,” he said. “They want America to be an Islamic state.”

[..]*** It’s a syndicate, a Muslim mafia, and law enforcement is only starting to get their arms around it. The base of their operations is in Northern Virginia, where I live — right in the shadow of the nation’s capital.”

Oh, BTW...

Illinois Schools Canceling Christmas and Halloween to Avoid Offending Muslims -Chicago Sun-Times

Freedom1,

Very sobering, and should be for everyone!

It leads one to question our government leaders once again--Why oh why did you let them in this country??????????????

Islam Delenda Est.

Wake up America!!

Jeremiah

Freedom1,

Thanks! You really know how to get a person stirred up right at bedtime.

Perhaps we can put Muslim jihadists in charge of our national immigration program, border and airport security, and the Coast Guard. That should show "we mean them no harm" and ease the pacifist Liberal's worries about any profiling!

After the Left-Wing Democrats, the ACLU, and Muslims get through, we'll be lucky if conservative and traditional Americans are "permitted" to observe Christmas at all. Worse, we'll be lucky if we have any recognizable America left! Christians seem to have lost the will to fight and stand up for their traditions and beliefs!

I wonder how Democrats are going to react when the Muslims' beliefs and agenda clashes head-on with the Democrats' gay marriage agenda! If the battle gets physical, I'd put my money on the Muslims!!!

I've had it with the Liberal lunatics Liberalism, their political correctness, anti-Americanism, and attacks on traditional America, but so far, I haven't found any organized effort to stop it. Sign me up!

AAR

AAR,

I agree, and that's why I think people should see this over and over, and make it sink in--

PLEASE AMERICA!! YOUR FUTURE, YOUR CHILDRENS FUTURE, AND YOUR GRAND CHILDRENS FUTURE DEPENDS, IS CALLING, IS PLEADING FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DROP YOUR MONEY, WORK, AND WORLDLY WORRIES BEHIND TO TAKE A STAND FOR THE CONTINUED BLESSED FREEDOM THAT WE HAVE, AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE WILL BE A DISCONTINUATION OF MUSLIM ACTIVITIES IN AMERICA. PERIOD!!!!!

Jeremiah

STOP THE JIHAD!!!

Jeremiah

WAKE UP AMERICA: WE ARE NOW A VICTIM OF OUR OWN DEMISE!!!

Jeremiah

You said it, AAR! Jeremiah, those are terrific websites, I highly recommend that everyone take a good look at them! America is in deep trouble.

WAKE UP, AMERICANS!

Freedom1, Jeremiah,

"...those are terrific websites, I highly recommend that everyone take a good look at them! America is in deep trouble."

I agree! I am going to e-mail the links to everyone I know and ask them to do the same. I hope others will do likewise!

If people view only one of the three, as might be the case with those who still have dial-up access, I would suggest starting with ...

WAKE UP AMERICA: WE ARE NOW A VICTIM OF OUR OWN DEMISE!!!
(How To Destroy American)

AAR

They hate the military because those serving in uniform are true patriots, unlike most of those on the left.

A-10, we have a new name for these "patriots." I got it from the Rush Limbaugh Show; not from Rush, everyone, but a caller. The caller called these hate/blame-America loonies "hatriots." It's a fitting name for them, and we should use it constantly, to remind ourselves who these people really are.

Oh man... really bad answer. Give it another try, okay?

sleepy, I really expect more from you than this retort to a valid explanation from Mark. This is the kind of response we'd expect from libturdT, whom I haven't seen around here lately. Are you she?

Or is libturdT taking a breather and changing her name again? I have a jingle, dedicated to libturdT. You older folks will remember the old Libby's commercial, so here goes:

When it says libturd, libturd, libturd, on the label, label, label, you can bet your bottom dollar that the poster is mentally disabled.

Sorry, guys--I'll keep my day job.

OT: I know you all missed me yesterday, and I'm sorry I didn't join you. I had to bowl last night. It was the first time I've bowled in a league since 1999, and it wasn't pretty. When I got home, I went trolling, on americablog.com, and I was having too much fun to come here. Let me clue you troll pukes in on something: compared to the tin-foil hat loonies over at hate-AmericaBlog, you're all a bunch of pikers!

Trolling over there has proven to me that the left, regardless of whatever proof is offered to them, is the most dishonest group of people in the country. The way they ran with the Limbaugh "phony soldier" comment, and still run with it today, proves to me that once they perpetuate a lie and the lie gains traction, they won't stop until they've destroyed the individuals whom they fear and despise.

This is why I despise all liberals/progressives/pinko-socialists, and will never, ever grant these miscreants an ounce--a gram if you're Canadian--of respect...

Rico, there are only two paths open to us in the middle east. 1. Defeat. This could take many forms. 2. Victory. This could also take several forms.

Now, I can't remember you personally advocating withdrawal - but plenty of liberals have. But withdrawal is not the ONLY path to defeat. Your constantly picking at our strategy here and asking questions about the cost. OK? So, we've argued about the costs. We've argued about the need. I'm just saying that when faced with a similar dilemma Harry Trumann decided on atomic weapons.

As to your question about a nation of religious fanatics vs. just being ruled by them. Now its time to go back and read MY former posts. I believe that this is a false question. I have stated many times that this is a wrong and dangerous way of understanding national identities.

Was Germany ALL Nazi? No. But they were a Nazi nation. You think the "regular" Germans at Stalingrad were any easier to fight?

Was Japan ALL dedicated to Bushido? No. But that did not help the Marines on Okinawa.

Was the USSR ALL dedicated communists? No. And yet they had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us.

And so - Iran. Are they ALL fanatical Shiite warriors? No. But their nation IS. Iran is looking to fill the power vacuum we've created and not adequately refilled in the region. They are working towards nuclear weapons. Those weapons are NOT destined for Israel - they will instead be used as a threat when Iran takes over southern Iran - and possibly later when they move into Kuwait and even the rest of the Gulf. Remember - that gulf has TWO names depending on where you are standing.

So I say, if you are not willing to do what needs to be done with conventional air strikes and ground forces. If you are willing then to cede defeat. Then consider one of the alternative paths to victory.

Mass along the Iranian border and force them to mobilize. Then whack their airfields, supply depots, armored and infantry forces with atomic weapons. If the threat continues, them whack Tehran. Then offer up the Iranian oil fields to the Iraqis IF the come to terms with each other.

The population reduction and added dust in the stratosphere will also help alleviate global warming. Another lefty benefit.

that should have been when they move to take over southern Iraq...

Kahn,

Good points...

And had the Democrats stood behind the President and our nation's efforts to defeat terrorists and our enemies -- rather than spending the past 7 years undermining President Bush and America with their incessant hate filled propaganda spread around the enire world -- we could have more effectively dealt with Iran (Syria, North Korea, etc.)...and we might well have resolved the problem without having to resort to a full scale attack on Iran, and the possibility of using nuclear weapons!

AAR

AAR - agreed. But here we are. Their own arguments about it "being too hard" are what I'm using here. Their blindness to threats does not diminish them.

Though I've always felt that the plan for renewed aggression by North Korea has been tactical nukes. They have overwhelming numerical superiority and it would be the only way to stop them.

Kahn and AAR, just curious... just how "mainstream Republican" do you guys consider yourselves?

The subsequent post to this one was about "Leftwing Political Landmines". AAR has talked about forming sime kind of grass roots movement within conservative circles to counter groups like MoveOn.org on the left. So I'm wondering what your opinions are about how your views might cause similar landmines in the GOP. Do you think the GOP in general is copescetic about nuking Iran?

Kahn,

I think it's just a matter of time before we see nukes used somewhere in the world -- hopefully it won't be on American cities -- but even that is more likely now... with Democrats' by their words, actions, and deeds encouraging and emboldening terrorists and our enemies around the world... and Democrats' misguided concern about the welfare and rights of terrorists over those of Americans!

Democrats have increased the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used somewhere in the world in the not too distant future! ! !

AAR

Ummm, Mark and everyone?
You know what would help validate your crowing?
If deaths were actually down. They aren't. Follow your own link, bright boy.
They're up, and 2007 is going to be the bloodiest year of the war for our troops. But hey, who cares about that if you can get your jollies, right?

Ricorun,

RE: "...your views might cause similar landmines in the GOP."

That is a very valid point! It's a problem for the GOP now... one I have considered... and one I have indirectly addressed several times on this blog -- although, I didn't identify it as such.

Do you recall one of my solutions?

(Hint: Mark disagreed with the approach!)

Gotta run for now, but I'll check back later this evening.

AAR

Rincon, it my mind, it immediately eliminates Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, and Edwards. Clinton is on the bubble. I do not trust Paul, not too sure about Thompson, and, why I really like Tancredo's tough stances, he only offers one idea. Not too sure about Mitt. Despite my opposition to McCain, I think he would be capable of what we were discussing. Rudy, as well.

Rico, sorry - did you have a point? Just dismissed my points with no argument, no logic, no explanation. Well, well, well, debate redefined.

brad,

Well, there was that major allied offensive against the terrorists which started early in 2007...you have to fight for victory in war, you see? And when you fight, people die.

Kahn: Rico, sorry - did you have a point? Just dismissed my points with no argument, no logic, no explanation. Well, well, well, debate redefined.

Sorry about that. I had some doors I needed to replace. Anyway... I think when using nuclear weapons, context is very important. Truman decided to drop a couple of nuclear weapons to end a war, not to start one. Others in various administrations and in various contexts argued to drop others on other countries. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed. And it turned out, the world didn't end.

In all of those cases we eventually managed to "win" not by war but by economic advantage. In most cases, the economic leverage wasn't at all obvious at the time, it had to be cultivated. In Iran's case, as in North Korea's case, the economic weaknesses don't even have to be cultivated. They are immediately obvious. What we need to cultivate are allies. That's a concept the Bush administration seems to have a real problem with. And I argue that one big reason for that is that different factions within his administration are not all rowing in the same direction. Disagreements within the White House about policy direction is one thing (and a very good thing). It's another when the implementation of the policy itself is running in different directions at the same time. That's schizophrenic. It's been that way for quite a while. But Bush, even now, is either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

That's one point. The other point is that you seem to think that no one will give much of a rat's ass if we drop a few nukes on a country that, although it wages some low-level proxy wars against our interests in a couple of places (similar to the USSR), has not attacked us directly. My guess is that the rest of the world would be absolutely horrified if we did that. Never again could we attempt to portray ourselves as the "good guys". OMG, talk about opening Pandora's box. That's nuts, just nuts. That's my opinion anyway.

So I ask you again... how "mainstream Republican" do you consider yourself? You obviously think I'm a leftie. So how would you label yourself?

Teach: Rincon, it my mind, it immediately eliminates Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, and Edwards. Clinton is on the bubble. I do not trust Paul, not too sure about Thompson, and, why I really like Tancredo's tough stances, he only offers one idea. Not too sure about Mitt. Despite my opposition to McCain, I think he would be capable of what we were discussing. Rudy, as well.

A few days back B4B had a discussion about the importance of executive experience on the part of those aspiring to be president. To my mind, experience in foreign relations is equally important. On the Republican side, I don't think there's anyone anywhere close to McCain on that score, Rudy, Mitt, and Fred included. But again, a president doesn't stand alone.

On the Democratic side there are more to choose from, at least on this issue. Unlike you I'd say Robertson has the most experience. He's been UN Ambassador, the Secretary of Energy, and even Bush43 recently tapped him to get involved with the North Koreans, whom he knows quite well. He has also been nominated for three Nobel peace prizes for different things. Yet you have dismissed him on the basis of his foreign relations experience. I don't understand that. It seems far less than obvious.

On the Democratic side I'd also have to say (in no particular order) that Dodd, Biden, and Hillary also have considerable experience.

Great idea, AAR!

Ricorun,

Truman decided to "drop a couple of nuclear weapons to end a war" that was already ongoing... and to prevent the millions, possibly tens of millions of American and Japanese causalities -- dead and injured -- which were expected have resulted from the planned invasion of Japan.

If we conduct a preemptive strike against Iran, it will be with the intent of preventing Iran from developing the capability to nuke us first, and to prevent the potential loss of millions of Americans -- which Liberals would otherwise allow to occur before they were convinced Iran is serious in their efforts to destroy us and Israel! Even then, rather than striking back, Democrats would probably call for the immediate surrender of the United States! You say no? Just what do you think Liberals will do if Iran (or al-Qaeda) develops a few nuclear missiles, stations them just off the coast of the United States on a ship, and threatens to launch them at one or more major cities if we do not immediately surrender? Democrats would surrender!!!

As far as "winning a war" by economic advantage, times have changed. It's difficult or impossible to do that while other nations are not participating, and they continue to support and supply Iran -- while Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons. We saw what happened to the U.S. and world economies after 9/11. What do you think a nuclear attack on New York or Washington, D.C. would do to America's and the world's "economic advantage"?

As for "cultivating" allies, we have tried that, and continue to try. Other countries have little or no incentive to impose the necessary economic and diplomatic restrictions, sanctions, and boycotts when they aren't the potential targets... when it's not to their own economic advantage... or when they intentionally want Iran to threaten -- even nuke -- the United States! Now, if we could put those countries in the nuclear bull's-eye, they just might understand America's concerns! It is not President Bush who is the problem, or who isn't trying to "cultivate" allies. The problem is with countries like France (maybe that's changing), Germany, Russia, China, and North Korea.

As far as "different factions within the administration not all rowing in the same direction", what do you expect when the Liberals in the State Department are deliberately trying to undermine the President, and others are releasing classified information to the New York Times anytime they choose, without being tried as traitors and jailed!

As far as people getting upset "if we drop a few preemptive nukes" on a country that hasn't [YET!] attacked us directly", I'm sure they will, but that may be what it takes to prevent the death of millions of Americans who "used to live" where an American city "used to be"! Unfortunately, "proxy wars" aren't the real concern -- and even if it were, what happens later, after Iran has nuclear weapons? At that point, the situation becomes exponentially more dangerous, as it is with North Korea, and will be with Pakistan if the Islamic extremists like bin Laden overthrow the government and take control of their nuclear missiles!

I'd expect that the rest of the world -- and America's Democrats (Liberals) would be "absolutely horrified", but I'd bet they would be even more horrified watching news reports of where New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles or San Francisco "used to be"!

Now, if we could get the Democrats to agree, that if we follow their theoretical textbook "liberal" approach to dealing with Iran, and then we are nuked, Democrats (Liberals) will permanently turn control of the government and our country over to Conservatives, we could give the Democrats' suicide plan a try!

Repeating... If Democrats had stood behind the President and our nation's efforts to defeat terrorists and our enemies -- rather than spending the past 7 years undermining President Bush and America with their incessant hate filled propaganda spread around the entire world -- we could have more effectively dealt with Iran (Syria, North Korea, etc.)...and we might well have resolved the problem without having to resort to a full scale attack on Iran, and the possibility of using nuclear weapons!

Democrats, by their words, actions, and deeds, have increased the likelihood of nuclear war!

AAR

Ricorun,

RE: "...your views might cause similar landmines in the GOP."

After my last post, I'm now short of time to respond to your comment about "landmines".

I would employ several methods. For one, I would address and work the more controversial issues "outside" of the GOP, until they become more "mainstream".

Right, left, moderate, middle, and mainstream are all relative, and change over time. The extremes from both sides, pulling and pushing against the middle, continually redefine the meaning of mainstream and moderate. For the past 7 years -- after Republicans "lost their voice" -- the extreme Liberal Left has done all the pulling, moving the mainstream more to the Left. Now, we need the Right to pull it back!

AAR

AAR - beat me to the punch. Good explanation.

One thing though, Iran HAS attacked us.
1. The seized our embassy in 1979 - that was a direct attack on the US
2. Marines in Beruit - my brothers former unit was wiped out
3. Gulf Navy war in the 1980's, we ended up destroying half their Navy. Remember the sea mines they were laying?
4. Multiple terror attacks.
5. Attacks against soldiers and Marines in Iraq - now.

Rico - I think you find that if we used enough nukes and targeted them correctly they would in fact end the war. Radioactive dust can neither be hostile nor an effective fighting force. As to other nations in the area..... you actually think they would attack us with Tehran glowing in the east? really? And at least we'd be arguing about deeds done rather than facing pressure to withdraw.

You liberals are right. I'm just agreeing with you. A conventional war would be too hard. It would be too costly. And it would take too long.

A few atomic weapons on the other hand would do the job in seconds. AGAIN, tell them we're going to invade and then whack their deployed forces along with the nuclear development valley and possibly Tehran.

Then the surviving freedom loving Iranians you allude to can take their country back.

Why so surprised. It is the corner liberals have painted us into. Isn't it?

Where to start... Perhaps the best place is at the end:

Kahn: Then the surviving freedom loving Iranians you allude to can take their country back.

Yeah, I'm sure under those circumstances freedom will be the first thing on their minds. Not. Rather, I'm quite sure they'd be madder than hornets. And they wouldn't be the only ones -- it would cause an international backlash of disgust and horror. The Iranians might not cease to exist, but the GOP would. And what about Bush? The only way a nuclear attack would happen within a scenario that you propose would be if he failed to go to congress to get a declaration of war. If he did, he won't get it. If he didn't and dropped nukes anyway, he'd be tried as a war criminal. Of that I am certain.

Of course, this whole discussion is an academic enterprise, because it ain't gonna happen. The reason I pressed you guys is to see how honest you were about really pursuing such a course -- and if so, to see whether you guys understood how extreme your opinion is.

I'm now reasonably sure you're honest. I'm less sure whether you realize how extreme your opinion is. However, if coming to the same conclusion is required to label someone a conservative, then you're right -- I'm a liberal. Then again if that's your requirement, then you must perceive the country as awash in liberals.

But it isn't, because you're wrong.

Ricorun,

RE: "...this whole discussion is an academic enterprise, because it ain't gonna happen."

RE: "I'm now reasonably sure you're honest. I'm less sure whether you realize how extreme your opinion is."

As you correctly note, Iran knows full well it has nothing to fear from Liberals, because as you say "it ain't gonna happen." Our enemies know from experience, as well as the words, actions, and deeds of Liberals (Democrats) that they are "all talk and no action" -- literally!!! Our enemies know they can do as they please, because there are no consequences for their actions -- well maybe a slap on the wrist or some ineffective, loosely enforced "sanctions".

Our enemies aren't so certain, however, when it comes to Conservatives, and people like President Bush. If we say there will be "severe consequences" to pay, our enemies should take note -- unless, of course, a bunch of Democrats in Congress assure our enemies that Democrats will block those efforts -- as Democrats have already assured Iran and thereby undermined diplomatic efforts!!!

Saddam mistakenly believed he was still dealing with weak willed Liberals. Neither he, nor France, nor Germany, nor Russia understood that when President Bush said there would be "severe consequences", he meant exactly what he said -- not the rhetoric of Democrats like President Clinton.

Who is the bigger threat to peace...

A.) Weak willed, wimpy, pacifist Democrats (Liberals) who undermine our diplomacy because Iran knows there is nothing to back up that diplomacy other than more words... who allows and encourages Iran and our enemies to make serious mistakes in judgment, continuing to develop nuclear weapons... and which may very likely lead to large scale nuclear exchange in the future?

B.) Strong willed Conservatives who clearly and unequivocally state up front that there will be "severe consequences" to pay for developing nuclear weapons... whose diplomacy Iran knows is backed by strength, resolve, and probable action... who Iran will "respect" for our strength and seriously consider the consequences of their actions... and because of which Iran will likely choose to negotiate their "best" deal (your economic advantage) rather than face those consequences?

You mistakenly believe that because we say we WILL use force, that we want, prefer, and choose to use force over diplomacy. Not so! We do, however, want our diplomats and our enemy to know that our diplomatic efforts are backed by force; it is in the best interest of all parties to reach a diplomatic solution; and failing a diplomatic solution, we will take action!

Diplomacy works best when it is backed by undeniable and unquestionable strength!

(And even if I didn't intend to nuke 'em, I'd never tell, or let our enemy believe that!)

AAR

AAR: Who is the bigger threat to peace...

A.) Weak willed, wimpy, pacifist Democrats (Liberals) who undermine our diplomacy because Iran knows there is nothing to back up that diplomacy other than more words... who allows and encourages Iran and our enemies to make serious mistakes in judgment, continuing to develop nuclear weapons... and which may very likely lead to large scale nuclear exchange in the future?

B.) Strong willed Conservatives who clearly and unequivocally state up front that there will be "severe consequences" to pay for developing nuclear weapons... whose diplomacy Iran knows is backed by strength, resolve, and probable action... who Iran will "respect" for our strength and seriously consider the consequences of their actions... and because of which Iran will likely choose to negotiate their "best" deal (your economic advantage) rather than face those consequences?

It's a false dichotomy based on false assumptions. One false assumption is that all Democrats are Weak willed, wimpy pacifists. That's clearly incorrect. Certainly some are, but not all. Another false assumption -- although implicit -- is that the popular concensus among the intelligence agencies in the world (including ours) suggests that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. In fact, though, the concensus is that Iran is probably five years or so away -- PROVIDED that they don't obtain the necessary nuclear fuel from some other place. Well gee, what does that tell you?

Another false assumption is that the "severe consequences" of which you speak not only may involve, but LEAD with a nuclear attack. Granted, I'm borrowing that proposition from Kahn more than you -- and in that regard I thank you for finally admitting your initial "insincerity" (some would call it "dishonesty") on that point. But now that you have you have admitted it, you also now have to deal with Kahn's notion that nothing short of a nuclear strike will work. Kahn (perhaps inadvertently) brings up an important point: though I strenuously disagree with him that a nuclear strike will be more "antiseptic" than any other form of attack, I do very much agree that any other kind of strike carries with it some very messy consequences. It is my opinion, however, that the degree of messiness is very much dependent upon who in the international community we get to support us -- and in what capacity and to what extent. And frankly, I don't think a country gets to count themselves among the "coalition of the willing" if all they're willing to contribute is a dozen or even a couple-three dozen people. That's just ridiculous.

Face it: if we attack Iran in any capacity it won't be pretty. And we need as many real friends to make a real commitment as we can get. And if we can't find them, then perhaps we ought to rethink the proposition. There seems to be a tendency among many, perhaps even most, to construe things in simple terms of black vs. white, good vs. evil, us vs. them, diplomacy vs. nukes. But in the real world things are never that simple. Simply doing the right thing is never enough -- it is always necessary to do the right thing right. Now more than ever.

Rico - but your alternative is defeat. Think about that. It is VERY similar to the choice faced by Trumann.

Liberals have painted us into a corner of defeat - so they think. But there is still a path to victory. Other nations in the region... almost all Sunni and natural enemies of Iran wouldn't be that mad. Don't forget, the coming Iranian nukes are aimed at them - not Israel.

But I thought liberals didn't care about dead Iraqis and Iranians. I though that withdrawal with its awful consequences was OK? Well, is it or isn't it? If a war is worth fighting at all, isn't it worth winning?

Ricorun,

RE: "...if we attack Iran in any capacity it won't be pretty."

If Iran attacks us, Israel, or one of our allies, directly or through a third party (terrorist), it will be even "less pretty"!

One other point about your "economic advantage", Muslims are fighting and more than willing to die for God -- not for any "economic advantage"!

Newsday, Sep 30, 2007...

"...The new French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has warned that the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear program. Israel insists Iran is only a year away from developing a nuclear weapon and says it's prepared to strike Tehran first. In turn, Iran says it has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if it launches an attack on Iranian soil."

A "dirty bomb" could be much sooner!

Maybe France will be an ally on this one!

We need to educate the American people now, so they fully understand that if we are nuked, it is because of the Democrats!

AAR

We need to educate the American people now, so they fully understand that if we are nuked, it is because of the Democrats!--AAR

Amen, Bro!!

Jeremiah

Kahn: But I thought liberals didn't care about dead Iraqis and Iranians. I though that withdrawal with its awful consequences was OK? Well, is it or isn't it?

You'd have to ask a liberal what their opinion is. I can't speak for them. My opinion is that a complete, precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not recommended. However (and quite thankfully), the evidence does suggest that a gradual "re-deployment" of forces is not only possible but necessary. I hate to use the term "re-deployment" because it is such a loaded term. What I mean is that every indication is that once logistics problems are solved internal security can be handed over to the Iraqis fairly readily -- not completely of course, but more readily than we have. That will allow us to "re-deploy" to engage in support, special interdiction, and beefing up border security -- the latter of which has been pretty woefully neglected.

However, if you think that a gradual "re-deployment" as I've defined it is NOT possible, then it is incumbent upon you and all those of similar mind to contact your congresscritters without delay to let them know that our military forces have to be supplemented -- I figure by a minimum of 20%. Frankly, I don't understand why the subject hasn't already be broached. You can't very well talk the talk if you're not willing to walk the walk, ya know?

I have mentioned many times in the past that I feel the different sides of the political debate are talking past each other. That's one side of it: those that want to keep the current force on station at their present level for an extended period of time seem to be unwilling to accept the consequences. The flip side is that those that argue for a precipitous withdrawal are also unwilling to accept the consequences.

Obviously, I don't have the inside information. But from where I stand it sure does seem like neither side has been particularly honest. Although there are recent indications to suggest that at least they're beginning to talk AT each other if not exactly TO each other yet.

AAR (quoting Newsday): Israel insists Iran is only a year away from developing a nuclear weapon and says it's prepared to strike Tehran first.

If Israel really feels that way, I wouldn't stand between them and Iran.

Ricorun,

I wouldn't stand between them and Iran either.

I would stand behind them, back them, support them, and supply them... as I suspect we will!

AAR

brad,

"Ummm, Mark and everyone?
You know what would help validate your crowing?
If deaths were actually down. They aren't. Follow your own link, bright boy.
They're up, and 2007 is going to be the bloodiest year of the war for our troops. But hey, who cares about that if you can get your jollies, right?"

Oops. Guess you didn't see the news that Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths are 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006. Or that US military deaths are the lowest since July 2006, all the while we have more boots on the ground, more actively engaged, and are rooting out the terrorists.

But then, that wouldn't conform to the DNC/DU/Kos/MM talking points that the "Surge" has failed to make an impact.

The facts are that deaths are down, but why let facts get in the way of a lie.