Bush was not wrong.
In his historical speech immediately after 9/11, President Bush defined the enemy in the context of "the axis of evil". Iraq, Iran, North Korea. He was not wrong. And while the left concurs that Iran and North Korea are indeed an imminent and very real threat, they get their bowels all in an uproar over Iraq. Why? Because Bush removed the threat so they have to denigrate his success.
Anyone that puts party before country is a supporter of terror. Rand said do anything that supports the enemy during a war and you are a murderer.
Let's discuss Iran, part II in the axis of evil, the next, more complicated enemy on the war on Radical Islamofascism. Iran must be disarmed.
I would not dispose cavalierly of precious life. But the essential question is- is it appropriate for a country to defend itself? Yes. Iran, along with China, and North Korea are monstrous aggressors, whose first victims are against their own people. But if those very same people by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness couldn't overthrow their leaders, their oppressors, they must pay the price of the sins of their government. When should we attack them? At the first sign of aggresion by them, in other words NOW. We should fight them with every means we have. We must remove the comforting blinders of complicity and appeasement and recognize that Iran attacks by proxy (IE Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, tricky business). The fact is the Iranian regime has declared war on the West.
The objective of the Iranian nuclear buildup is certainly intended to be the gravest threat. How meaningful that threat is, is impossible to know as we can not be sure of how effetctive (or ineffective) their weapons are and surely we will not know until they are loaded on missiles and launched. But we certainly can not rely on their inefficiency. So of course we can make no cuts in the defense budget or our ability to fight this war ..........any democrat that would suggest it is a disgrace made all the worse by their hand wringing over the liberation of Itaq, the removal of a state sponsor of terror and the bemoaning the mistreatment of captured terrorist murderers.
One of the great crimes of the last century was Clinton allowing our military superiority to deteriorate but that is hindsight. We must correct it and that means not tying Bush's hands. So long as there is this kind of threat that Iran represents we must be 20 times, 40 times, more able. I'd rather blow up the whole damn world then surrender to Radical Islamonazism.
America should never have allowed Iran to get into the situation we are confronting now. It is certainly the fault of past and current foreign policy and at present there appears to be no right course of action.
I believe we must give all possible help to Israel. Consider what's at stake. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but China, Iran, and Russia, those who are sending the Arabs these sophisticated armaments, missiles and nuclear enrichment programs. Russia has even offered to enrich Iran's uranium. If Iran accepts the terms, it would be allowed to produce unlimited quantities of converted uranium. That material would be shipped to Russia for enrichment and then returned to Iran to fuel a nuclear power reactor. I think that's insane. Critics of the Russian plan, including some inside the administration, argue that it would allow Iran to master a critical component that could be diverted for atomic weapons work. Converted uranium, if enriched to bomb-grade, can be used for the core of a nuclear device.
In a statement to members of Congress, AIPAC said that it "is concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies." I think it's too late for this international mutual masturbation. These stall tactics give Iran time time time. And we all know what can be accomplished even under the toughest sanctions. The black market, the oil for food "business model" is text book on how dangerously ineffective the UN and international community can be.
Furthermore, let's explore why Iran and the Arabs are against Israel. The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are still nomads. Their culture is base, primitive. They hate Israel because it is the beacon of modern science and civilization on that continent. Ayn Rand said it best "WHEN YOU HAVE CIVILIZED MEN FIGHTING SAVAGES, YOU SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MEN, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE.".
This "problem" is not going to go away on it's own. Regime Change Iran now. I am weighing in on the side of military action. Previous to the Bush presidency, America's recent history followed a left wing, self flagellating foreign policy and it served to weaken us, empower despots IE Chavez, Castro and embolden our enemies. The Vietnam War was the fault of the same liberals and the same failed policies that today are at the forefront of the opposition to the war that the left is forever invoking . Remember it was the left that got us into Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson).
The left can not be effective in determining the best course for America to take in developing a strategy for Iran. Just as in the Vietnam era, they were/are spoiled brats looking for publicity, created by the LL media. If one is to make a meaningful contribution, think, argue, spread ideas.
The only thing that will stop Iran from starting a nuclear war is America's superior military strength.
Cartoon: Cox and Forkum
It is wild to me that we could possibly be having the conversation after 9/11.
What can you do to get the ball rolling?
Take Action Against the Iranian Nuclear Threat
· Urge Congress to pass the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005.
· Urge foreign governments on the IAEA Board of Governors1 to support the referral of Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council.Urge US policymakers to maintain the policy of not allowing Iran to acquire a domestic nuclear fuel cycle.
A nuclear Iran constitutes a serious threat, not only to the Middle East, but also to the entire world.. Diplomatic efforts have failed to halt Iran?s nuclear program. As the Iranian acquisition of a military nuclear ability nears, the threat of using force, and even the actual use of force, seem to be the only viable preventive measures. Israel cannot live in a nuclear 'balance of terror' with Iran. Military action against Iranian nuclear installations has many risks and is complicated, but the difficulty is exaggerated, and inaction is bound to bring about far worse consequences. Hat tip Ron W via Winds of Change
A recent statement by IAEA head Mohammed ElBaredai is getting very little attention and it warrants much, much more. While his statements were briefly discussed in RapidRecon, they warrant closer inspection. ElBaradei, in a remark in a private interview with the UK Independent newspaper, stated that Iran is two to three years away from a nuclear weapon in his estimation.
Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be “a few months” away from a nuclear weapon.
The article is titled UN chief urges West and Iran to cool brinkmanship over nuclear programme. Offering up the shortest known ‘authoritative’ estimate on an Iranian nuclear timeline is how the head of the IAEA chooses to ‘cool brinkmanship’?
If ElBaradei is finally admitting it, you can bet your bottom dollar that Iran is in striking distance of well, striking. Hat tip RickO via Threats Watch
UPDATE: December 28th
DEBKAfile A special Iranian plane flew Palestinian Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to Revolutionary Guards HQ at Bandar Abbas Monday, Dec. 12, after he spent 10 days in Tehran as favored guest of Iran’s clerical rulers.
UPDATE: December 29th Bush's Case for going toWar hat tip Hugh