Going after Iran -- in three days???

George Bush has warned that letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons risked putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust". Bush said, "We will confront this danger before it is too late." "Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault." (Sky News, Prison Planet, via Above Top Secret)

"If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today. ...

"The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity." (more)

Well, let's hope any plans to attack Iran's nuclear sites has been planned BETTER than the Iraq plans were.

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran:

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. (TimesOnline)

The Vineyard of the Saker:

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Middle Earth Journal:

And don't forget those brave Americans fighting in Iraq. Any attack on Iran will further destabilize the majority Shi'ite Iraq and the Iraqi security forces the US has armed and trained will turn on the American troops.

Opportunity is always present in the midst of crisis

Why is the US and Israel preparing to attack Iran?

It appears that Hillary Clinton has the answers and obviously a vote for Hillary is about as good as voting the Republican Party back into office.

Sweet Spirits of Ammonia:

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for air strikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down. If the Americans don't back down, Israel will be drawn in when Iran lashes out with its limited capability. There seems to be no escape from some kind of ugly confrontation with captain annihilation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Marjorie Cohn:

We have already seen how easily Congress caves in to AIPAC. It's up to the people. As Noam Chomsky said, "The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war [on Iran] is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam."

Yeah, let's leave America and Israel's future in the hands of Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky. NOT

Islamic Genicide 1988, Anti Mullah

Comments

[Thomas F Anderson]

Lew, Lew, Lew...
You just don't get it.

IF the October Surprise is true, I condemn it, both Carter and Reagan. BOTH. It was WRONG and ILLEGAL.

If you think it was okay, then why blame Carter?

Once the hostages were released, why did the Reagan administration continue to sell arms to Iran, an enemy? Are you also okay with that?

The October Surprise is a DIFFERENT event from the Iran-Contra affair. Hezbollah took hostages in 1983 which included 6 Americans. The Reagan administration negotiated a deal with Iran that would included the illegal sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the hostages. The money was funneled to a militant group in Central America known to engage in terrorist activities.

You can read all about it in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files%20public/TOWER%20EXCERPTS.htm

Speaking of official government records, the October Surprise conspiracy has been investigated for many years by many people. The official records exonerate the Reagan administration of any wrongdoing with regard to the October Surprise.

If what Mr. Gary Sick (former member of National Security Council) says is indeed true (despite official records to the contrary), then BOTH the REAGAN AND CARTER (administrations) were engaged in WRONGFUL and ILLEGAL activities.

Lew,
Maybe you should read my posts more clearly. Here's what i posted:
"Where is the ORIGINAL source that says Carter tried to sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages that were taken in 1983 (after he was out of office)?"

Lew, it seems like you are so concerned about bashing democrats that cannot admit that Republicans (like Reagan and others) can also make mistakes in their duties as politicians. I guess Watergate was also a left-wing conspiracy to destroy Nixon.

A few questions:
1. Was the Carter administration wrong to secretly negotiate for the release of US hostages taken in 1979?
2. Was Reagan administration wrong to secretly negotiate a deal with Iran for the release of hostages taken in 1983?
3. Was the Nixon administration wrong for sabotaging campaigns and obstructing justice?
4. Was Clinton wrong for perjury and obstruction of justice?
5. Was Scooter Libby wrong for perjury and obstruction of justice?

ALL my answers are YES.
What are your answers, Lew?

[Lew Waters]

hat's the matter, Thomas, pdf files not good enough for you? Obviously you didn't look at the post where I linked them.

Let's try again, okay?

Carter gives green light to Saddam to attack Israel

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html

A translation of the "Russian Report" listing the rumor of Reagan trying to withhold release of the Iranian hostages and also statements of Carters discussions of Arms with Iran (not a pro-Republican site by any means)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/russiantext.html

The actual pdf of the report (not the best quality, but readable, stating the Carter Administration first met with the Iranians prior to Reagan.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Russian-Surprise.pdf

Be sure to read it all, not just cherry pick claims against Reagan.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Lew said, "You should have read hte post better. Carter did indeed open shipment of arms to Iran, through Israel, for the hostages. The Iranians snookered him by holding them right after Reagan was inaugurated."

Lew, again, it's interesting that you cannot admit that repubs make mistakes.

Where is the ORIGINAL source that says Carter tried to sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages that were taken in 1983 (after he was out of office)? You are simply mistaken.

Here is a link to the Tower Commission Report which implicates the Regan administration: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files%20public/TOWER%20EXCERPTS.htm

Your commentary concerning Carter's involvement in Iran-Contra is simply false.

Take care.

[Debbie]

Stormwarning: This article is about a "three day blitz" plan by the Pentagon "for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days,"

To complete the mission in three days. NOT that we are going to strike WITHIN three days of this article.

Sorry you misunderstood.

Len: I think you are correct, we now have Germany and France, along with Britain. I don't think we can fully count on Russia though. After all, they helped build those sites.

[Len]

Now that France, Germany and some other European Countries are Beginning to see that W is RIGHT in the Stand taken regarding Iraq, Iran better do a 360 turn around or it shall be NEXT!!!

[Stormwarning]

Well, if its going to happen, we're one day away. I seriously doubt that we will "bomb. bomb, bomb Iran" as many are now "predicting."

That's right. We have unfinished business in Afghanistan, we have debatable strategies in Iraq...so on the performance, we're going to open a new front and commit more military resources (even if they are just planes, bombs and missiles).

Lets try for some reality.

[Lew Waters]

Oh please, Tom. Democrats creating scandal against Republicans? Like that is news?

Iran/Contra was basically a whole lot of nothing without acknowledging their own complicity in it.

You should have read hte post better. Carter did indeed open shipment of arms to Iran, through Israel, for the hostages. The Iranians snookered him by holding them right after Reagan was inaugurated.

I linked to pdf copies of declassified documents available on his actions then.

"Army of God
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Lord's Resistance Army
Freedomites
Aryan Nations"

In case you missed it, each of those and the KKK were marginalized and disowned decades ago and shunned by religion. Moderate Muslims must do the same to their despots today.

In the meantime, how many more attacks must we endure before the left says ENOUGH?

Don't worry about 'double standards.' We see them every day coming from Democrats.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Lew, just as I suspected. You couldn't admit a repub has made mistakes.

If Carter gave the green light for the invasion of Iran, I condemn it. If Reagan helped continue it, I condemn it.

Please clarify something: You say, "What became known as the Iran Contra Affair, which the Democrat party used to try to undermine Reagan’s administration, was actually started under the Carter administration and continued by Reagan."
Yet, the link you offer doesn't mention the Carter administrations' involvement. You only offer something about US involvement with the Soviet Union. What does that have to do with Iran-Contra (1985-92)?

To my knowledge, Carter never offered to sell arms to Iran for hostages held by Hezbollah. Government records indicate the Reagan administration did. The money was then to be funneled to militant groups in Nicaragua engaging in terrorists activities. PLEASE SHOW ME THE SOURCE that says the Carter administration started negotiating with Iran to release hostages that were taken after Carter took office.

Lew, it was the Reagan administration that took Iraq off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The Reagan administration even kept Iraq off the list after hard evidence surfaced that Iraq was using chemical weapons.

It seems like you have a double standard when it comes to repubs and dems.

"Thomas, please list the specific religions of Christianity and Judaism that today are killing in the name of their religion."
Here are some:
Army of God
National Liberation Front of Tripura
Lord's Resistance Army
Freedomites
Aryan Nations

But you miss the point, any person who engages in terrorist activities is not a true Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

If a guy from the KKK says he is a Christian, that is simply a falsehood. He is a Christian in name only.

[Lew Waters]

Sorry, the link didn't seem to take, try this, may have to copy and paste,

http://rightinaleftworld.blogspot.com/2007/05/jimmuh-what-have-you-done.html

[Lew Waters]

Tom, you really should do your homework more. The exchange of arms with iran began under Carter, as did the go ahead for he Iran/Iraq War.

I chronicled all that here, Right in a Left World: Jimmuh, What Have You Done?

[Lew Waters]

"Despite commandments from the same God not to kill, some extremists in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism continue to kill in the name of their religions."

Thomas, please list the specific religions of Christianity and Judaism that today are killing in the name of their religion.

I can't recall any crying Praise Jehovah or G-D or YHWH as they behead an innocent bystander or highjack aircraft and fly them into buildings or even set off a suicide bomb.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Ben said, "There are no terrorists, radicals, fundamentalists nor extremists. There are only Muslims."

This is simple not true.

What makes some Muslims kill?

Despite commandments from the same God not to kill, some extremists in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism continue to kill in the name of their religions. To a great extent, fundamentalists have hijacked these religions as a means to an end (annihilation/oppression/perpetual war). It's safe to say that these extremists are in fact not Christians, Muslims, or Jews at all, but impostors.

All too often, extremists intentionally misinterpret scripture to suit their needs. For example, some Christian extremists have taken a passage from the Bible as an excuse to kill abortion doctors or blow up clinics. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman...[and there] is serious injury, you are to take life for life..." (Exodus 21:22-25). The same thing happens in Islam.

The literal translation of jihad is 'effort' expressing struggle on behalf of God and Islam (much the way Jacob struggled with God in Genesis 32:28). However, the term has come to mean a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers. Muslim extremists have taken jihad as an excuse to wage unprovoked war against unbelievers.

The best way to understand the true meaning of jihad is to look at what the Quran has to say. "O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" (9:73). According to Maulana Ali, a Quran scholar, "The correct rendering is that jihad signifies striving, or exerting oneself, and there is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword or by the tongue or by any other method."

As for submitting to the sword, I didn't find any such passage during my research of the Quran. According to one Quran scholar, "The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Quran." In fact the following passages corroborate the scholars statement, "There is no compulsion in religion - the right way is indeed distinct from error" (2:256) and "The Truth is from the Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve" (18:29). One scholar states, "To all the nonsense which is being talked about the Prophet offering Islam or the sword as alternatives to the pagan Arabs, these verses are sufficient answers."

Muslims controlled most of Spain for over 600 years, and during this time Jews, Christians, and Muslims co-existed peacefully. The mere fact that they co-existed disproves the idea that non-Muslims had to convert to Islam or die by the sword. Following many peaceful years of Muslim rule, Christians were the ones who expelled Jews from Spain and started the Spanish Inquisition.

"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not aggressors" (2:190). One Quran scholar writes, "It is remarkable that fighting in the way of Allah is here expressly limited to fighting in defence. Muslims were required to fight in the way of Allah, but they could fight only against those who waged war on them."

"Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them...And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down" (22:39-40). One scholar comments, "The religious freedom which was established by Islam thirteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues, and cloisters as well -- in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom."

Another passage also corroborates the idea mentioned above, "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62).

And what does the Quran say about killing? "Say: Come! I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you...kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice. This He enjoins upon you that you may understand" (6:151).

It's clear to me that people who kill in the name of the Bible or Quran are not true Christians or Muslims. They are, in fact, spiritually dead.

The argument that the Quran is a book of war and killing could also be made about the Bible. Here are just a few examples:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ...'Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys'" (I Samuel 15:2-3).

"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men fell that day -- all the people of Ai" (Joshua 8:24-25).

"They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors...He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded (Joshua 10:37, 40).

"The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire" (Judges 1:8).

"Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the Lord your God has commanded you" (Deuteronomy 20:17).

"When I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengence on my adversaries and repay those who hate me" (Deuteronomy 32:41).

What makes some Muslims kill? Ideology based on hate, not the Quran.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Ben,

My bias is Christianity. Christ says love your enemies. Paul says overcome evil with good.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

I agree that there is a time for war, and history indicates war has been fought almost endlessly. But the bible also says there is a time for peace.

Ahmadinejad is a rhetorical cheerleader. He isn't the true source of power in Iran. The ayatollah is, and he has said he would accept the Arab League position which normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement with Palestine.

You are implying that Ahmadinejad is the beginning and end of all that is Iran. This is just not true. Stats show he is actually losing popularity among the public. True power lies with the Ayatollah and his office has even gone on record admitted that the Holocaust was genocide and historical reality.

If Israel is attacked, they have nukes. Heck they might even attack Iran preemptively. Everyone knows we have Israel's back. Why do we have to keep stooping to Ahmadinejad's level of childish rhetoric.

[Ben]

There is no possibility of victory in Afghanistan or Iraq. More than 95% of their populations are Muslims. Of course, one thing has failed to catch your attention: Islam is the enemy.

There are no terrorists, radicals, fundamentalists nor extremists. There are only Muslims.

Some Muslims engage directly in fighting. Others support their families, others send Zakat, all pray for victory, some engage in written or spoken propaganda. All support the Allah's cause.

It is not possible to establish democracy in an Islamic nation. Islam is rule by Allah's recitation & Muhammad's example, the product of human legislatures is blasphemy.

They do not want democracy, they want theocracy.

They do not want peace, they want total world domination. Allah promised it to them and they are claiming the promise. No matter how long it takes, in spite of any and all temporary setbacks. That's what Islam is; that's what Islam does.

When they run out of Kuffar to prey upon, they'll practice Takfir and attack fellow Muslims as they are doing now in Iraq.

If we pull out of Iraq, the Shia & Sunni will go at it hammer and tong. Iraq will wind up as an Iranian Satrapy, and the balance of power in the region will be upset. Iraq will resume status quo ante as a member of the set of state sponsors of terror.

Islam can not be defeated, it must be eradicated.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Lew, if you think it is possible or even reasonable to fight every war or conflict, then so be it. I just don't think it is rational. Nor is it rational to imply that only dems flounder when it comes to foreign policy and national security. What exactly did Giuliani do? And what did Reagan do in the 1980s? His administration tried to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages. The illegal money was to fund terrorist groups in Nicaragua.

Just like you said Lew, 1980s is when the war on terror should have started. Yet Reagan, a republican president, was building up Hussein and Iraq while he went behind their backs to sell arms to an enemy, Iran.

At least I can admit dems make mistakes. Can you be rational enough to admit Repubs do too?

To imply that dems are categorically incompetent is incorrect. Do you favor a one-party system? If so, that sounds like the Soviet Empire.

To imply that Carter's administration was a total failure due to the Iranian hostage crisis is like saying Bush's administration was a total failure because of the Iraq invasion. I disagree with both.

[Ben]

The nation/state model does not fit this conflict.

This ain't about Afghanistan, Iran nor Iraq. It's about Islam vs. civilization.

Islam, while presenting as a religion, is actually perpetual war virally transmitted.

Allah created the whole ball of rock, owns it as sole proprietor, demands 100% submission, obedience & formulaic worship. Allah appointed Muhammad bin Abdulah as his vice regent, commanding him to fight with men until they submit and testify that only Allah has the right to be worshiped.

The whole deal is really about acquiring wealth, steady income, sex slaves and power for Muhammad through the professional practice of piracy.

As a Muslim you are damned; your one hope of salvation is fighting for Allah. Your hope of obtaining a good position in the celestial bordello is attaining martyrdom. Fight and go to Paradise, shirk and go to Hellfire. Perpetual wine & virgins or bitter thorns, boiling water and hot coals; yer choice.

As a Muslim, you must infect others by forcing them to submit. They are then recruited to join Allah's army and enslave more. Doubters are referred to: Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 & Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386; Google the citations. Read them and curse Islam!

It is not possible to contain, pacify, subdue, cow, dominate nor subordinate Islam. It will not cease from attacking until it is extinct.

When in a position of relative strength, Islam attacks. In a position of relative weakness, it retreats, regroups, rearms and prepares to resume attacking.

Predators can not graze; they must eat meat. Islam is a predator. It preys on the human race. There is no reason for allowing it to continue.

If we bitterly bitch about a few thousand casualties and demand abandonment of the battle, what will we do when confronted by demands of submission backed up by nuclear war heads combined with an effective delivery system?

Do you realize that Ahmedinejad sent an extortion letter to President Bush, demanding submission? [http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/
] Did you know that Muhammad first sent extortion letters, then he sent his army?

It is not possible to effectively defend every possible soft target 24/7/365. It is necessary to exterminate our enemy.

I hate war; love peace. Peace is obtained by victory. Peace is perpetuated by exterminating the enemy.

What in Hell have 60 years of half-hearted self defense, restraint, negotiations, concessions, good will measures & appeasement obtained for Israel? Are we so damned stupid that we can't learn from her mistake???

[Snooper]

The Leftinistra (the Armies of the Socialist Liberal), primarily composed of mutant trolls that have no thoughts of their own, feel it a requirement to repeat the same old rhetoric utilized to get their puppets elected into the Leftinistra political regimes.

Now that the SAME old tired and used up lies have been debunked, refuted and proven wrong in the plethora of posts and speeches hence, the TRUTH has come around and bitten them in the hinder fleshy parts.

I find it amusing that the theoretical intelligentsia among the elite of the elites of the Leftinistra find it necessary to whine, claw and scratch at old wounds that never seem to fade away.

Let not your hearts be troubled. Victory is at hand and the Leftinistra will vanish into the Halls of Shame of Obscurity.

[Snooper]

One of these days the trolls are going to realize that the material they use is old garbage and doesn't fly anymore.

Noe to trolls, namely Thomas fruit Loop, GET SOME NEW MATERIAL!!

[Lew Waters]

"Democratic presidents and Democratic congresses have been just as willing to fight wars and defend our country as Republicans have."

Oh? Where were you during the Bay of Pigs fight for Cuba? Where were you in 1975 and Saigon fell to the Communist North? Where were you in 1993 for the pull out from Somalia after our Troops bodies were drug through the streets in Mogadishu? Where were you when we encouraged the Iraqis to stand up against Saddam and they received no backing from Democrat led Congress? What did the Democrat President and COngressdo to defend Ameica after the first WTC bombing in 1993?

Just because it isn't on our shores doesn't mean it isn't about our security.

While we are at it, what did the Democrat Presidency and Congress do when Iranian students took our embassy staff hostage in 1979? That is when this current "War on Terror" should have started, when htey first atatcked us, not nearly 30 years after and some 15 attacks later.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Lew said, "And, in how many of those years has the leftist Democrats controlled the House and the Senate? The real power in our government is from them, not the presidency."

That's my point, Lew. Democratic presidents and Democratic congresses have been just as willing to fight wars and defend our country as Republicans have. That's the point I was trying to make with Roger.

Lew said, "It is naieve to think someone as Ahmadinejad is interested in Diplomacy."
Ahmadinejad is the rhetorical "cheerleader" who offers "red meat" to appease the hardliners. Anyone who has studied Iran knows that Iran also has an increasing amount of moderates (both political and civilian) who are prime for reform. Saying "all options are on the table" and "we might use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities (paraphrase)" does not help the moderates in Iran. Stooping to Ahmadinejad's level of childish rhetoric only makes things worse for true reform in Iran.

The true power lies with the Ayatollah and other religious leaders, and believe it or not the Ayatollah has said he would accept the Arab League position which includes the normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement between Palestine and Israel.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/in-search-of-one-enemy-for-the-west/2006/09/12/1157826938559.html

If we are so irrational as to think Iran truly wants a nuclear holocaust, then we might as well nuke them. I choose to believe otherwise. I believe diplomacy might work. So does Ms. Condi Rice: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/31/rice.transcript/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics
She even said the following, "The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right."

Khrushchev once said, "we will bury you." But they didn't. Diplomacy works.

Granted, I wouldn't talk directly with Ahmadinejad. He's just a pawn.

You also might want to read this article by the Jerusalem Post called From Crisis to Opportunity.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894478639&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Roger W. Gardner]

Good night, everyone. Gotta get my beauty sleep.

Night Cp.

Night Deb. Happy anniversary!

[Debbie]

Cyber Pastor: Thank you for the comment. Yes a free flow of ideas, every one being civil in their responses.

God bless each of our military members, their families and everyone who supports them.

War should never be the first option, but it should never be taken off the table.

When forced to protect America and Western values, we will stand up and fight. And we will WIN!

[Cyber Pastor]

Proud to see the truth flowing freely on another site. God bless each of you veterans! I stood in front of a soldier in line at a convenience store today. I love thanking those who are serving our country. This young man has spent two tours in Iraq. He was so polite and was interested my time in the military. God Bless America!

[Thomas F Anderson]

Roger,

I will not resort to namecalling unless it is self-deprecating. That's why I said, If I'm a fool so be it.

Roger, the reason I said "I have nothing against those who have served," is because you said, "I hardly need to be preached to by folks like you to "join up and serve my country." If I have offended you, I apologize, but I still have nothing against those who served no matter how much I refute your claim that "these delusional liberal ideologues have aligned themselves with our enemies," and that "dems have thwarted almost every move the administration has made to support our troops." These statements are simply not true.

Yes, SOME far-left liberals have aligned themselves with questionable figures and SOME dems have tried to critically question and keep the administration in check.

If you call my ideas far off base, then please objectively address specifics as to why they are far off base without subjectively offering generalizations about those "delusional liberals and defeatists dems." I made valid points in my original posts. To simply call them outlandish without addressing the issues I pose is an easy way out.

Sorry for not discriminating and being politically correct. I have nothing to hide, and I am certainly not below apologizing. As you will see from my comments I make every effort to address people's concerns.

[Roger W. Gardner]

Right on, Snoop. I luvya.
Happy Labor Day.

IHHR

[Thomas F Anderson]

Susan said, "It is very easy to criticize at the same time as NOT offering up valid suggestions of your own."

I have often voiced my opinions on this blog and others concerning the "solution" in Iraq. Without going into too much detail, as I have already mentioned much of this already in previous posts, I will a brief synopsis.

I just don't the whole world is going up in flames if we leave Iraq. It didn't when we left Vietnam. It didn't when Bush I left Iraq in 1991. It didn't when we left Korea. It didn't when Castro took over in Cuba. Get the picture. Sure, these areas are reason for concern, but the world didn't fall apart. Sure people would have continued to suffer under Hussein, but people still are and he's 6 feet under. 70,000 Iraqi civilians have died since March 2003. IF you make the argument that we HAD to remove Hussein for the sake of the people, then why haven't we invaded Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, etc?

Democracy thrives and maintains itself if the conflict starts from within. Militarily things may be improving, but it is a political mess. Even our ambassador to Iraq has admitted that.

Do you honestly think the Syrians, Jordanians, Israelis, Egyptians, etc. want the war in Iraq to spillover to their countries? I don't. That's why I think they would step up along with the Iraqi govt if we told them we were leaving within a year. Deadlines are necessary. Otherwise, newspapers wouldn't get written, taxes wouldn't get paid, etc. Even Bush has said our commitment to Iraq isn't open-ended. That's right, Bush said it.

Some dems are for immediate withdrawal, but the majority of dems favor phased withdrawals and an increasing number of repubs are mentioning the W word and that our commitment is not open-ended.

I believe we should have a phased withdrawal within a year with many of our troops going to Afghanistan (after R and R of course). Afghanistan is the ideal location to monitor and put the pressure on both Iran and Pakistan.

Susan, I mentioned this in my first post. I hope it is clearer now. What is your strategy?

[Roger W. Gardner]

I'm just getting tired of arguing with you, TFA. Your specious arguments are as far off base as your presumptuous advice for me to "sign up in the armed force" without knowing a damn thing about who the hell you're talking down to -- a stupid remark, incidently, for which you've never seen fit to apologize.

Your remarks just get more and more ridiculous the longer you go on. For instance, I am so happy to hear that you "have nothing against those who serve." !! That's pretty big of you, TFA. I'm sure all of our fellow vets will be glad to hear that you have "nothing against them" for their having served their country.

While you, presumably, are "serving your country in other ways". If those other ways include talk like you've indulged in here, TFA, we don't really need your two-faced help.

Furthermore, if the "Armed Forces" would accept the reenlistment of a 70 year old, I'd gladly offer them.

Finally --
"If I'm a fool for peace, so be it."
Your words, TFA, not mine.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Ben said, "I was not born when President Truman saved a million GIs by dropping Little Boy & Fat Man. I learned of it in history books. We needed his decision making and decisiveness six years ago. We still need it."

I do not believe history indicates the dropping of the two atomic bombs on civilian areas of Japan. Here are just a few quotes from the US military leaders of that era:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Dwight D. Eisenhower

Other military personnel who disagreed with the necessity of the bombs included General Douglas McArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, General Carl Spaatz, Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Major General Curtis LeMay, Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Ralph Bard, Fleet Admiral Charles Nimitz, Commander of Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral Charles Nimitz

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William Leahy

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Ironically, it appears as though the decision to drop the bombs was political, not military. Was the United States concerned about the Soviet Union's decision to join the war effort in the Pacific? Regardless, the decision to drop the bombs was unethical if not illegal.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Look at the facts folks. Historically, democrats have a long record of fighting wars and defending our country (WW2, Vietnam). Even resolutions authorizing and funding the war in Afghanistan and the 2 wars in Iraq have been supported by BIPARTISANSHIP (democrats and republicans).

The point I'm making is that you seem fixated on "liberals" who NOW oppose the war in light of the progress of the war (both militarily and politically). What about the republicans who feel just the same? You seem to imply that only democrats despise war or seek alternatives. History indicates this is not the case. Even recently, many democrats have helped the president by funding the two wars. So what if some democrats want to withdraw troops, or attach guidelines and timetables? There are also an increasing number of Republicans who feel the same way. It's called checks and balances. Any congressperson in his or her right mind should not let the military or president go unchecked. Nor should the president or the supreme court let the congress go unchecked.

So all I'm asking is that you be as equally critical of the republicans who oppose the war and seek alternatives. Debbie has done a decent job of trying to remain objective and critical. I can't say the same for many offering comments.

Roger, the following is simply not true (too general):"For the sake of opportunistic political gain, they have thwarted almost every move the administration has made to support our troops, and only given in reluctantly when they had no other choice."

"They (the dems) have thwarted almost every move the administration has made?!?!" The war resolution for Afghanistan passed with 99.9% bipartisanship. The resolution for the 2nd Iraq war passed with even more support than the first gulf war. Many dems voted for the Patriot Act. Many dems have consistently asked for more funding for veterans, especially wounded ones. This is certainly one area the republicans have traditionally cut. Many dems voted to help bush pass the wiretapping law. Dems continue to help fund the war. Check the facts. At least use the word "some" after democrats to help qualify your statement.

Roger said, "Get your facts straight before you mouth off." Roger, please be specific about any facts that are in question and I will be glad to offer references or admit my mistakes (if necessary.)

You and your son are to be commended for serving our country in the form of military service. If you visit my website, you will notice that I have nothing against those who serve. My father and many of my uncles have also served.

My point was that if you are so concerned about losing our will to FIGHT, then you should consider re-joining. I prefer to serve my country in other ways. I would much rather die opposing war than supporting war. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." I prefer peace to war, but I realize war is sometimes (not always) necessary. "There is a time for war and peace." I just don't think the war in Iraq was necessary, and I thought the bush administration was painting a rosy picture of the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath. We should never send our soldiers into battle too hastily, and we did. I see nothing unpatriotic, idiotic, or foolish about wanting to preserve life, especially the lives of our soldiers.

As for saving the lives of civilians, we must recognize that "fighting" terrorism has more to do with intelligence and diligent police work. Even if we had started a preemptive war in Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 9/11, it would not have stopped the events of 9/11. 9/11, for the most part, could only have been stopped by intelligence and diligent police work. We will always have terrorism, but we must learn how to reduce the threat of it properly contain it, like we have with crime to a large extent. We still have crime, and we will never completely eradicate it, but we have learned how to live with it.

If you and others want to nuke countries who are trying to get nukes, go right ahead. But it will only lead to more war. Wars of attrition will only serve to destroy this great country. Just ask the Romans and other great civilizations.

If I'm a fool for peace, so be it, but I won't be caught dead fighting in the unnecessary war in Iraq.

As for solutions to the current state in Iraq, I have made my opinions know on this blog and others.
If you are willing to read my views on war and peace, please visit the following link:
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/2006/09/should-us-attack-iran.html

[Snooper]

It seems to me that the troll Thomas F(for Fruit Loop) Anderson has mental issues and should be returned to the 7th ward ASAP.

[Debbie]

Ben: I agree with you. Headed over to check out your site.

We need a decisive more when it comes to Iran.

[Ben]

I was not born when President Truman saved a million GIs by dropping Little Boy & Fat Man. I learned of it in history books. We needed his decision making and decisiveness six years ago. We still need it.

We also need Mark Steyn's analysis of the situation. Western civilization is losing its confidence and its reason for being.

Down this path lie defeat and domination.

Visit my web site, Grouch, and check out my on line petitions, you may find something you like there.

[Lew Waters]

Thank you, Debbie. It is people like you that make me feel welcome and appreciated for serving.

You analysis is very well thought out and expressed. That is always a problem for the emotional left, they don't think, they 'feel.'

[Susan Duclos aka Spree]

No thanks needed Debbie, but your welcome. The truth is easy to tell and I have come to respect and look forward to reading your blog every day.

[Debbie]

Spree: Thanks for those kind words. Much appreciated.

Lew Waters: Thank you for your service for your family and their sacrifices. Thanks also for the excellent comment.

[Susan Duclos aka Spree]

Anderson:

Roger as well as many others that are heading over here ARE Veterans and I second Roger's question:

What have YOU done for your country?

Where do you get your news from?

Debbie provides exclusives from those "in the know" in Iraq and other places.

Debbie's analysis, as usual is spot on.

It is very easy to criticize at the same time as NOT offering up valid suggestions of your own.

The only spin I see Mr. Anderson seems to be coming from you.

Debbie, thanks, GREAT POST.

[Lew Waters]

"The Republicans have had the presidency 28 out of the last 40 years"

And, in how many of those years has the leftist Democrats controlled the House and the Senate?

The real power in our government is from them, not the presidency.

[Lew Waters]

T. Anderson, please be specific in listing where "History indicates that skillful diplomacy and pressure works."

It is naieve to think someone as Ahmadinejad is interested in Diplomacy.

What world do you live in? Did the Diplomacy of Neville Chamberlain prevent WW2? Did the Diplomatic "end" of Viet Nam stop the Communist slaughter that ensued afterwrds in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos? Has "Diplomacy" gave Cuba back its free status?

You saw an example of radical Jihadist "Diplomacy" on September 11, 2001.

As for Afghanistan, isn't that where we turned over much of the operations ther to NATO, due to pressure from the left? You currently have left-winged Democrats indicating a withdrawal from there also.

Please indicate exactly what you would be willing to give up in "Diplomatic Negotiations" to the radical Jiahdists to prevent Iran's gaining nuclear capability, or do you see no problem with terrorists being able to access nukes?

How many more "Diplomatic missions" from the Jiahdists will it take?

[Roger W. Gardner]

To Mr. Anderson -- As a proud veteran, whose son is also a proud veteran, who served his country as an Army Ranger fighting in the First Gulf War, I hardly need to be preached to by folks like you to "join up and serve my country". What, I wonder, have you done for your country?
As far as my characterizing the far left Dems as being on the side of the enemy, all you have to do is consider how hopeful the jihadis are for a Democratic win in "08.
For the sake of opportunistic political gain, they have thwarted almost every move the administration has made to support our troops, and only given in reluctantly when they had no other choice.
On the homefront the Dems have invariably alligned themselves with the likes of the ACLU and CAIR, and have attempted to obstruct every piece of legislation that has been proposed to protect this country in its time of peril.
And you ask me what world I live in? Get your facts straight before you mouth off. You might just make a fool out of yourself.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Roger said, "These delusional liberal ideologues have aligned themselves with our enemies; now we have to wake up and come together and take our country back."

The Republicans have had the presidency 28 out of the last 40 years and both houses of congress from 1994 to 2006 (12 years). "Take our country back?!?!" You've had it all along.

"we have lost the will to defend ourselves."
Since 1941, the US has been involved in a major war 42 out of 66 years. That means that 64% of the time since 1941 we have been fighting in major wars. This does not include the Cold War.
"Lost the will to fight?!?!" We've been fighting the whole time. Both Democrats and Republicans.

The authorization to use force against Afghanistan and the Taliban was 99% bipartisan. Even the questionable Iraq resolution of 2002 was passed by wider margins than the 1991 resolution to use force against Iraq.

And every major newspaper and tv network minus ONE (Chicago Tribune) supported the president's decision to invade Iraq.

Every single dollar the president has requested has been given to him. Sometimes, even more than he requested.

Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers have lost life and limb DEFENDING this country. If you are so worried about us losing our will to fight, why don't you sign up to serve in the armed forces instead of bashing "liberals for aligning themselves with our enemies"?

Roger, what world are you living in? It sounds like a lot of spin to me.

[Debbie]

Ortho: You've found a following here with your suggestion. Grouch (hubby) loves it.

Roger, no we haven't lost our will yet. Americans will stand up. If we don't, I hate to think about the outcome.

[Roger W. Gardner]

Correction: I should have said [almost] lost the will .... We haven't completely lost it yet.

[Roger W. Gardner]

Don't all of our national problems basically boil down the same thing -- thanks to buying into the whole ridiculous, self-defeating concept of PC nonsense a couple of decades ago, we have lost the will to defend ourselves; the will to defend to the death this beloved country of ours has been slowly but steadily eroded.

These delusional liberal ideologues have aligned themselves with our enemies; now we have to wake up and come together and take our country back.

[Grouch at Right Truth]

"Mess with the U.S. and get incinerated."

I like it! I love it! I want some more of it!

[Ortho]

I say the U.S. should nuke Iran. What would be the repercussions? None. Nothing. Britain, France, Germany, and China wouldn't do anything. Israel would applaud U.S. actions as long as the fallout blew north or to the east. The best option is a nuclear option. Quick, deadly to Iran, and safe for the U.S. Plus a nuclear hit sends a strong symbolic message to U.S. enemies. Mess with the U.S. and get incinerated.

[Debbie]

Thanks everybody for the input.

Going soft? Me? No way! I say go for it. We will have to do something about Iran.

And as has been stated, we have the Navy and the Air Force just sitting on standby waiting for the "GO" order.

[Machiavelligz]

at first, I thought you were going soft linking to the Cohn article---until I read your comments : )

[Grouch at Right Truth]

We could eliminate Iran from the face of the earth in less than 3 days.

We should.

We won't.

We don't have the political will or courage to defend ourselves decisively against our enemies.

[Angel]

its about bloody time Deb!..Hope youre havin a great holiday weekend!..:)

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

Better sooner than later.

OK, Iran wants get nukes/

Drop some there to them!

Let's roll!!!