by other means. JR Dunn at Real Clear Politics:
The Iranians, in Dr. Kissinger’s words, believe that they are “in a position to challenge the entire world order.” They need to be persuaded otherwise, and that cannot be accomplished by negotiations, concessions, or even visits from Kofi Annan. The Iranians, as shown by every foul speech from Ahmadinejad, every threatening missile launch, every advanced, Iranian-designed bomb that goes off in Iraq, believe they can play in the big leagues.
Well – we can play, too. We’re not proposing, needless to say, invasion and occupation, which, as Iraq has demonstrated can have its drawbacks. We’re talking about a no-holds-barred attack by air, naval, and Special Forces assets, something along the lines outlined by Arthur Herman in his superb Commentary piece, “Getting Serious About Iran”. A strike that will leave Iran with no navy, no air force, no serious nuclear potential, and an army reduced to pre-20th century armaments and mobility. An Iran roughly in the same state as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.
And that turned out well for us in Iraq too.
Your defeatist crap is old, actus. You’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Dunn is correct. Iran has declared war on America and is openly supporting the insurgency in Iraq, supplying it with ammunition, advanced IEDs and training in their use. These are blatant acts of war against the U.S. What is needed in response is not regime change in Iran, but regime destruction, with sufficient damage done to Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure to prevent it from becoming any sort of threat for the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, since John Kerry won the 2004 election—I must have been hallucinating when I thought Bush won— all we have now to stop Iran is the insane charade of modern international diplomacy and UN resolutions—you know, the same process that just recently successfully disarmed Hizbullah and protected the freedom of Lebanon.
I’m just not seeing the realism in pointing out that 1991 Iraq is the goal after the last few years where we were told that 90’s (and post 90’s) Iraq was a menace. But if you want to tell me you’ve changed your mind, and have come to see the light, thats fine. Bombs away. there’s a couple thousand iranians yearning to die like Iraqis did in the 90s. All because we care.
Punitive Expedition.
Actus cares more about Iranians than Americans, so he can afford to be glib.
It was primarily the leftist-inspired, UN-run, oil-for-food program that allowed Hussein to become a threat again. No military action will have a permanent or lasting effect if it is undermined by subsequent UN actions that restore the flow of funds to those who wish to destroy us.
Getting rid of monkyshines has sure given Actifed more oxygen to waste.
We were also told that Iraq wasn’t a problem because we’d bombed the trouble right out of them. Remember that? In fact, we’re currently told that people who said that were absolutely right when they said we shouldn’t go into Iraq.
Is that what you think we should do, actus? Bomb the trouble out of them, like we did to Iraq in the 90’s?
I agree with Dunn, but our window of opportunity is rapidly passing. A strategic move against Iran’s weapons might help topple the regime. There’s not a lot of popular support for the extremists in the general population. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s enough will to do it. Bush is a beaten man. The forces against him are finally taking their toll. There’s only so much one man can do.
actus: What Dunn is proposing is comparable to disarming a psychotic killer before he goes on his next killing spree. You have already proved time and again that you don’t give a damn about saving anyone else’s life, much less your own. Why don’t you fuck off and go bother other people? In fact, why don’t you just fuck off? I am tired of your callow, glib, uninformed inhumanity.
acturd doing that naked table dancing again, ahem? Prolly more room to fling those scrawny elbows now that spunkyboi’s missing.
Dealing with children can be a trying experience. Some people, like Actard, just refuse to become adults. I pray for my son…
There’s only 1 problem with that: we’re goign to be told by warmongers that we didn’t actually ‘finish the job’ and have to ‘go back.’ So I don’t think it would work, because of warmongering hawkish fools that are able to affect our discourse and sometimes get themselves elected president. But otherwise, help yourselves. Tell everyone that your plan is to do what has worked well with Iraq. Another, what? hundred thousand dead? After all, this blog and comment section has become one big care-contest. Who cares the most? Care away my friend. Care away.
Good question, since you’ve already answered who cares the least.
Thats what i’m talking about. The care-contest. Who cares the most? the guy worried about the 6 not dead? the guy that says the problem with Iraqi reconstruciton is we plain old didn’t kill enough people? The ones that want to do these nearly 20 years all over to Iran? Its all up in the air in the race to care.
You’re using four words where two will do, counselor.
Don’t forget to send a few to Syria while you’re at it. And if we can blow the windows out of a French embassy or two (see Libya, in the time of Reagan), bonus points.