Nuclear Iran- Part II

I am sure Ahmedinejad is thankful.”
Indeed he is. The Progressive Liberal Left is helping wage his war of breaking down of will to stand up against him, garbling debate and employing boilerplate stereotyping tactics to encourage people to ignore the warning signs and berate anyone who raises the alarm – at a time when a number of actions – not necessarily war – are still available to help counter this aggressive and brutal regime. All this running interference for free! Ahmedinejad is not just thankful, he’s delighted.

Ignore, ignore means the Iranian regime can carry on without disruption, and steadily increases the probability of total war, the worst case for everyone. We may be quite unperturbed and complacent here in Arizona, but have we checked the European press lately? They are very very very worried. The UN has three sets of sanctions on the books now which Iran is blatantly ignoring, and with the rising anxiety from the Iranian Regime’s announcement regarding achieving their benchmark objective to enrich uranium to levels required for weapons applications – not even a shock – there is heavy pressuring for more sanctions.  (  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8522910.stm   ). Europe will be in the target zone and they do not have a missile shield. Because of the expense and development required, they’ve been long banking on the USA to provide that – and Obama by his rebuffing of Poland, is sending out a clear message to our allies they cannot count on that, as long as the Democratic Party holds on to power.

Because of its size, even ONE nuclear warhead detonating anywhere in Israel would be far more devastating than two or three in a nation the size of Iran. They’re worried. What good does it do Israel to have “300 warheads” it can rain down on Iran when the one can’t be stopped? Iran will not launch one, they will launch multiple. Only one has to get through. Iran knows it, Israel knows it. It’s an intolerable situation. When Iran announced this week that Israel wanted war by this summer, Israel coolly replied, “No we don’t.” But the inclination of the press is to admonish Israel, not Iran for provocative nuclear talk.(   http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100216/twl-israel-mulling-a-spring-or-summer-wa-3cd7efd.html )

Why focus on just Israel? Iran and Iraq are traditional enemies; Iranian Revolutionary Guards were infiltrating, training and heavily funding the insurgency in Iraq against US troops. Iran could easily choose to drop a nuke on Baghdad as payback for Saddam’s invasion of Iran and the resultant 9 year war during which over a million people were killed, and by that also eliminate an inconvenient democracy on their border. On Iran’s other border, a nuke to destroy Kabul and by that, the Afghan government there would make it easy for Iran to invade and conquer that nation in order to spread Iran’s form of radical Revolutionary Islam.

It doesn’t HAVE to go to war, but the way the Obama Administration is not handling this, aggravated by Obama reaching his hand out to the Anti-American Ahmedinejad, hugging the America-hating Hugo Chavez, in the room with American-murdering Ghaddafi, and nothing extended to the pro-freedom Iranian people has sent a terrible message across the globe. Allies and enemies alike are downgrading their traditional assumptions about America’s reliability for the worse, a weakness that our enemies will exploit, and greatly increasing other nations resorting to war to stop Iran before it can attack them.

America is not helpless. Citizens have every right to expect and insist that our elected leadership represent our national interests of security, which includes our allies. That’s their JOB. These representatives are supposed to be stewards of our military and our foreign policy, maintaining capacities; working at all levels of diplomacy and using all available established mechanisms to make every  reasonable effort to keep the conditions that produce war from not developing.

But the United States Government today, controlled monopolistically by the Democratic Party, is presiding over not national security, but a massive political fete, featuring a pinata of American wealth, loading it up with taxpayer money, and tinsel goodies bought on debt – with entitlement groups swinging blindly to smash the bird while special interest groups fight over the “free money” sweets that spill to the ground.

That is NOT the role of good government. That is NOT the behavior of a responsible citizenry.

When the favors have run out, the money gone, the taxpayers broken, the hangover begins. The national wealth blown on an out of control binge fueled by greed; frivolous pursuits indulged while national security was neglected. Our irresponsible government will stagger off like the dissipated Belshazzar of Babylon who feasted and partied, squandering the wealth of the people instead of attending to his duty of guarding the city while the king was away, leading the army to defend the nation, drunkenly blinking incomprehensively at the words written before him on the wall that condemned him: Mene Mene Tekil Parsin.

“Because of your arrogant and irresponsible behavior, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”

As we consider the many candidates who are lining up for 2010 and 2012, for a chance to be the ones chosen to represent our state, and our nation, as representatives, senators and president, those who understand this grave duty and can stand firm despite political attacks and pressure to capitulate should be the ones selected to move to state and national seats. Citizens have a responsibility to each other to chose wisely, to consider well the character, the experience and the abilities of each candidate. Shallow and uninformed decisions will reward representatives who are unequal to the task of representing and governing.

The Persian leadership is poised to test America as it has never been tested before; they are but one of our enemies, so we need to select men and women who will be able to provide informed and solid leadership, and who will always vote for the best interests of the American People and their rights as derived from the American Constitution.


Comments

  1. YAWN.

    China just unloaded $35B of our bonds last week. Subscriptions were down. A mystery buyer (the Fed) bought 25% of the last treasury sale.

    Do you understand any of this? Probably not.

    I wont explain it to you. You’re going to need to feel the pain yourself before you get it.

    I’ll just say this. The economic threat China poses in terms of its ability to turn the entire economy of the United States off overnight is 1,000,000% more concerning than what you write here.

    In other words: “YAWN”.

  2. Jon Altmann, ISCS, USN (Ret.) says

    Iran is not an easy issue.

    It is essentially one people, not multiple tribes like Iraq. It is essentially one faith/sect, again, unlike Iraq.

    We need to be careful to take actions that do not cause a national pride reaction across internal political beliefs.

    The financial and economic options have not been exhausted. Iran is very dependent on other countries for gasoline supplies because it has little refining capacity – and refineries take time to build. Most of Iran’s gas must be imported via the Persian Gulf – another economic choke point.

    Many of the world tanker fleets are insured by only a handful of insurers, all under the regulatory control of the Western nations who do share the Iranian threat.

    As for the Chinese, they have sold Iran many of its weapon systems over the years.

    However, owning a weapon system and maintaining it are two separate things.

    Other third world egos, such as the Hugo Chavez, are controllable. His country has declining oil sales. Our going “green” hurts these third world bubbas.

    Finally, dropping a nuke is a messy business. The world’s prevailing winds blow fallout a lot of places. What Iran may or may not fire off may be tempered with what will blow back over Tehran a week later. It would give a whole new meaning to a “nuclear Iran” if a lot of its own forces were sick from their own radiation.

    Iran’s behavior can be channeled. The problem is too many hungry salesmen of stuff keep selling them stuff. We need to control the salesmen, not Iran.

  3. Claiming that the United States government should be the worlds policeman in order to protect so-called “national interests” is the same sorry reasoning that George W. Bush used to justify invading Iraq.

    http://xrl.us/AForeignPolicyOfFreedom

  4. Wanumba,

    “But the United States Government today, controlled monopolistically by the Democratic Party,”

    Hmmm, when the GOP had control of the whole ship of state did you call their control “monopolistic”? Just curious.

  5. Hmmm, when the GOP had control of the whole ship of state did you call their control “monopolistic”? Just curious.
    ……..
    Only if they employ the closed door tactics of the Democrats Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

    If they did, or would do the same, yep.

  6. Rosco P Coltrane says

    We were deceived by the neocons into going to war in Iraq. The same neocons are deceiving us again. What makes you think any of this tripe coming from our government is true? Nothing else is.

    We are at war in Afganistan, Iraq, and Pakistan spending at least 1/2 trillion dollars a year. That’s not enough destruction, I guess. That’s not enough money and power for the military industrial complex.

    We are not the world’s police. The people in the middle east do not need our “help.”

  7. …………………..
    Thane Eichenauer Says:
    February 19th, 2010 at 11:21 am
    Claiming that the United States government should be the worlds policeman in order to protect so-called “national interests” is the same sorry reasoning that George W. Bush used to justify invading Iraq.
    ………..

    “World policeman” is absolutely NOT the same concept as “protecting national interests.”

    “Protecting national interests” by projecting force to the source of the problem was employed first by Thomas Jefferson in the Barbary War of 1801, also called the Tripolian War, followed by the same “protecting national interests” justification used by James Madison for the Second Barbary War of 1816, also known as the Algerine War.

    Jefferson expressly ruled out “policing” the oceans against pirates as impractical to the point of impossible. He argued that in the case of terrorism against Americans, the only solution was to GO TO THE SOURCE and fight there. It has proven to be an extremely succesful tactic to keep our country safe from the destruction of open conflicts on US soil for over two hundred years.

    “Protecting national interests” through projecting US forces abroad was the justification for the USA entering WWII. American troops fought and died for America … in France, in Germany, in Philippines, in the Pacific.

    So Bush’s use of projecting US forces for “protecting national interests” has been the historical tradition of the USA.

    Clinton was the president who came up with a historically new idea of “policing” in the Balkans, a conflict that had no apparent national defensive reasoning in line with the other deployments of US troops overseas.

    America tried to be aloof from the war in Europe and the Orient in WWII, until they learned at the attack on Pearl Harbor and the actual invasion of Japanese troops in Alaska, and the German wolf pack submarines were at our Eastern Coasts that the war was going to arrive on our shores regardless.

    Our schools don’t teach the history of the Barbary Wars, so it’s pathetic, but not a surprise no one knows it. This ignorance then makes it easy to assert without questioning that Bush had no precedent in projecting US forces overseas to protect our national interests and to incorrectly muddle “policing” with strategic military targeting.

  8. China is a subject that is so important and huge, it deserves its own column, for another day, wouldn’t that be so?

    US tax structure and regulatory constraints created by Congress has chased US production overseas, usually to CHina, so our current sitaution was years in the making, and didn’t have to be so.

    China lists the USA as an enemy, yet the Obama Administration was dispatching Hillary CLinton to China to get them to buy up more US debt that the Democrats just blew past Mars. Obama also met with the CHinese and issued a letter of understanding that announced the US expected CHina to help mediate bewteen Pakistan and India. India, our ally, a nation which had been invaded by CHina and Paksitan both and lost territory to them, hit the roof.

    Lots and lots of serious serious issues that don’t diminish in any way the seriousness of Iran’s threats.

  9. …………………….
    Our going “green” hurts these third world bubbas.
    ……………..
    It also hurts countries like Southern Sudan, which is depending on oil sales to fund their national development, hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, bridges, city electrification, rural electrification … to recover from decades of war imposed on them by the Muslim Nortehrn Sudan.

    Going “green” will depress their revenue and thus their development.

  10. Well, the above comments show it is not just the ‘Progressive Liberal Left’ who are not interested in wanumba’s type of war-mongering against Iran.

    I think the comments to a nice job of refuting arguments but I would add that wanumba seems to have a problem in that he doesn’t understand the difference between responding to an act of war (Barbary coast piracy) and attacking a country with no provocation (Iraq and perhaps Iran in the future).

  11. todd Says:
    February 20th, 2010 at 8:33 am
    and attacking a country with no provocation (Iraq and perhaps Iran in the future).
    ……………..

    Iran’s public threats of nuclear destruction of its enemies are considered to be extreme provocation and are being taken seriously by its neighbors, most of which are on its enemies list. Unlike conventional warfare, which is destructive enough, nuclear war is so devastating, that no country can risk it.

    The entire point was to bring to people’s attention that early stages intervention – and there are many means by which to do this – can often prevent total war.

    Ignoring and poo-pooing Iran’s technical abilities simply allows Iran to carry on unimpeded with the improvements and advancements they themselves know they need to make to achieve their goals. While some people can only rouse themselves to dismissively laugh at the Iranian’s technical weakness, the Iranians are very very busy working to FIX that.

    Iran is of an ancient civilization, with advanced cities and empires established long before Europe’s. They are not a tent-dwelling uneducated bunch of rubes. And they have the oil money revenues to fund everything they can make themselves, and to buy the rest of it.

    The Iranian people through their protests against the Regime’s tyranny are showing the entire world that this regime is incredibility brutal and vicious, and the decades-long goal of the Iranian Revolutionary Regime is to expand this brutality beyond Iran’s borders. How is the security of the world and America’s security served by allowing in any measure this known brutalistic regime to expand?

    Yet, instead of reinforcing the Iranian People’s struggle for freedom, the Obama Administration tried to reach out and have a face-to-face dialogue with the American-hostage-taking Ahmedinejad, and has been silent as Iranian blood has been spilled on the streets, which is an enormous diplomatic loss for the US and a strengthener of Iranian Revolutionary Regime will. The bold nuclear threats are a sign that the Iranian Regime thinks the USA will stand by passively. What a terrible statement of the failure of America leadership.

    The United States currently is perceived overseas as weak, by our traditional allies and by our traditional enemies. This is forcing nations to rewrite their foreign policies – always always, any government’s number one duty is to provide for the national defense.

    It is a solemn duty of the citizenry to VOTE in an informed manner and to select men and women who are equipped with information, and good sense to represent them in Congress and the White House. Candidates for high office should be questioned to determine their grasp of the security issues facing America in the months and years ahead.

  12. ………………….
    “he doesn’t understand the difference between responding to an act of war (Barbary coast piracy) and attacking a country with no provocation (Iraq and perhaps Iran in the future).”
    …………….

    Iran’s current president, who the Iranian poeple have been protesting as having stole the last election against the lawful will of the people, Mr. Ahmedinejad was one of the Revolutionary Radicals who overran the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage.

    That was an act of war, by ALL international agreements, protocols and treaties.

    The Iranian Regime by copious public statements, considers themselves to be in a perpetual state of war with the USA since, using and abusing diplomatic structures regularly, funding numerous radical terrorist organizetions as proxies, linking up with other brutal regimes like North Korea to develop nuclear weaponry.

    Iran is acting in full harmony and consistency with its political and military positioning versus the USA, and has been for two decades. The US response varies widely depending on whether Republicans or Democrats are in the Executive Office.

    The Iranians learned through their experience with jerking Carter around that Democrats are more wishy-washy than Republicans, so they wait for Democrats, and spend much time and effort in propagandist whining and whinging about “evil,” “war-mongering” Republican in order to sway public opinion to the more “moderate,” “considering” thinking of Democrats.

    Classic whinge: “Why does Washington send young tigers to deal with old men?”

    Maybe if they hadn’t pirated American ships and thrown their crews and pasengers into slavery, they’d not have to deal with the American “tigers.”

  13. Wanumba. so you want to attack Iran because of what happened 30 years ago? You think that is justified?

  14. todd Says:
    February 20th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    Wanumba. so you want to attack Iran because of what happened 30 years ago? You think that is justified?
    …………….

    How old are you?

  15. …………………
    “so you want to attack Iran because of what happened 30 years ago? You think that is justified?
    ……………..

    We should be concerned about what Iran has in mind for this summer or anytime ahead, since they announced unilaterially this week that Israel wants war, which Israel replied, no it didn’t. And Iran is promising nuclear destruction of its enemies, including US, and the Brits and the French and so forth, so Europeans irritate the Iranian Regime as well, so it can’t just be Americans being Americans or Israelis being Israelis that gets them offended. Seems Iranians offend them, too, judging by the numbers of dead civilians and cracked heads that keeps rising as the days go by.

    Attack is the LAST resort, AFTER all other efforts have failed. Obama was moving to normalizing relations with Iran, but what does THAT mean? The Iranian Revolutionary Regime is pounding the crap out of its citizens. What’s to say about that? The Iranian People not “understand” or are they “unreasonable” or “lack tolerance” or whatever Americans are routinely accused of when dealing with the Iranian Mullahs?

    One learns about the past, to understand the motivations and actions of the present and to make reasonable judgments about the future.

    With the known past of Ahmedinejad and the radical mullahs, starting their careers with an act of war against the United States, violating every diplomatic and international law and protocol on the books, their known funding for years of proxy terrorists, coupled with their present brutality of their own people, we are ALL on firm ground expecting that Iran has EVERY intention of doing EXACTLY what they say they want to do.

    Whether they achieve it depends then on how well we and other nations foil their plans BEFORE they reach fruition. But ominously, the Obama Administration has rebuffed the appeals of the Iranian People, in favor of concilatory rhetoric to the man and the Regime who abuse them.

    Did we all not learn that lesson of the past? Hitler signing all manner of peace accords so Western leaders could proclaim, “Peace in our time!” while he expressly used those treaties to buy himself time to build his military?

    That sort of naive, denial of reality allowed a meglomaniac to amass an army that would sweep across Europe, and across Northern Africa, and deep into the Balkans, then across into Russia, the start of a total war that engulfed nearly every nation on the planet in some manner.

    “Peace in our time” was a fantasy of foolish hoping.

  16. wanumba,
    Iran is not promising to destroy the US and Europe. That is completely made up.

    Yes, one does learn from the past. The problem is that the Iranians learned that the US is not concerned with democracy in Iran since we overthrew its democratically elected government and installed the despotic Shah. The US has zero credibility on this issue with the Iranian public. US action is this will not aid the Iranian opposition but rather strengthen the hand of the current regime.

    Iran is not Nazi Germany and it grows quite tiresome that every situation becomes cast as the next great appeasement. This is not an argument but a transparent rhetorical ploy. We heard the same thing about Iraq and that turned out to be completely wrong. Maybe you should try to learn a little something from our more recent past.

  17. todd Says:
    February 20th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
    “Maybe you should try to learn a little
    something from our more recent past.
    …………..
    Maybe you should read the recent news to try to learn a little something:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8523340.stm

  18. Oh, signs of some life at the White House. accordign to the BBC, Robert Gibbs just said “there would be consequences” if Iran keeps up with their nuclear ambitions.

  19. Tehran University erupts using American Revolutionary Rhetoric:
    http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/12/tehran-university-erupts.html

    “LIVE FREE OR DIE!”

  20. Iraqi Kurds thank America:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C8ktHUBD0s

  21. “Maybe you should read the recent news to try to learn a little something:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8523340.stm

    Read it. Does not support your claim that Iran promising to destroy the US and Europe. In fact, it shows the opposite.

  22. None of it supports your statements. That’s ALL that’s necessary.

    And the subject all along is the effectiviness of current US foreign policy towards an nuclear-weapons developing Iran, not what you imagine me to be, based solely on lame political stereotypes.

  23. wanumba,
    You aren’t even making sense. You post something you claim states that Iran is threatening Europe and there is nothing of the sort in the article.

    Also, calling you a warmonger has nothing to do with any stereotypes it is entirely based on the things you write.

  24. So, what do you think the Obama White House means by “there will be consequences” to Iran’s pursuing the Bomb?

    What did it mean when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Obama has ordered Naval ships to the region in regards to Iran’s nuclear program?

    Uh, oh …? or … whatever, *yawn*

    I’m concerned because I haven’t seen a Democrat Administration in my lifetime know how to properly use our military.

Leave a Reply