Daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, we can see that Iran and Islam are again rattling the sabre of confrontation. It is clear that weakness begets war. As that old Anglo white warmonger capitalist-conservative Churchill stated, ‘Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished.’ Tamely surrendering to fascist Islam, running out of Iraq and Afghanistan to placate chattering socialist morons at home and in the media, or the opportunistic cowardly and fainéant, will only embolden civilization’s enemies.
For those who are historically-challenged it might do you some good to understand that appeasement, weakness and cowardice are not intelligent options with dealing with a fascism. Perhaps the screaming socialists might want to read the history of the 1400 years of Arab-Islamic jihad against the world; the rise and fall of Nazism, Communism, or the destruction of various oriental empires to understand that fascist violence mandates military strength and preparedness. Kow-towing to Asian, Muslim or fascist sensitivity is remarkably unintelligent.
Iran wants a confrontation. Its regime of mad Mullahs needs external enemies to solidify domestic control. The big unknown in Iran is how much real support does the regime have? It is not too wise to expect that a majority or even a significant minority of Iranians desire a Western friendly regime or massive institutional change. Don’t expect that a large segment of the population wants to replace the Mullahs with something that is pro-Western or pro-reform. After all the British incorrectly surmised that most Germans wanted to be rid of Hitler. This was simply untrue.
In dealing with a state like Iran you have to implement 3 main ideas. 1. Employ international sanctions, including cutting off all financing and use diplomatic pressure to force the Iranians to stop their nuclear program and renounce violence against Israel. Make the sanctions real, and make them hurt. 2. Seal off the borders between Iran and Afghanistan and Iraq, and patrol all waters just outside the Iranian line of sovereignty. Make your military muscle obvious. 3. Prepare plans for a large scale military strike using land, sea and air forces, and a pincher movement from Afghanistan and Iraq into Teheran.
None of these is even being considered and the Iranians know it.
Europe and Russia flaunt sanctions just like they did during the 1990s in Iraq. For 10 years the UN led by the wonderful transparent democrats in Germany, France, Russia and China made billions of dollars in illegal fees and revenues in Iraq while 300.000 Iraqi’s were murdered; and the country became a nexus of money, terror, fascism and illegal weapons of all varieties and manufacture. The same debacle goes on today in Iran. The Europeans and Russians talk about sanctions but are hypocritically increasing their trade and investment. They could care less about the threat Iran poses to the region or the fact that Iran funds terror world wide.
Even more dangerous is the real possibility that the US congress might actually force a pullout from the Middle East in 2008 or 2009. The repercussions of cutting and running from the Middle East will be felt for two generations.
Running from Beirut in 1983; Iraq in 1991; and Somalia in 1994-5, only emboldened Islam. It did not deter it. Giving Iraq over to fascists and Iranian agents will herald a gigantic defeat for Western civilization. Iran sensing that the West is weak and perhaps on the brink of strategic defeat in Iraq and elsewhere, is now looking to embolden its own tactical advantage and leverage.
Perversely from the Western viewpoint we are on the cusp, for the first time in Iraq’s bloody and violent history, of attaining a semblance of a Constitutional democracy that is pro-Western. It is not sensible to withdraw from Iraq and lose forward ground bases against Iran. If Iran is truly the threat that most of the world thinks it is, what geopolitical or military logic is there in throwing away your forward base of operations in Iraq? You can’t invade and destroy the Iranian regime from Kuwait. Check a map. You need to quickly effect a pincer movement from east and west towards Teheran. This is yet another good reason why we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the chattering moral relativists and socialist defeatists logic is irrelevant. The war is lost, all wars are bad, and can’t we all just get along ?
As Victor Hanson commented:
“Prewar forecasts warned a worried public that we might lose 3,000-5,000 soldiers just in removing Saddam. Three years later, we have removed him and sponsored a democracy to boot, and at far less than those feared numbers. But we react as if we had faced unexpected numbers of casualties.
Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddam’s Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.
Apparently, we are asked to believe that the al Qaedists whom Iraqis and Americans kill each day in Iraq largely joined up because we removed Saddam Hussein.”
For Iran the hyperbole is the same. Endless dialogue with mad fascists is the preferred program. If Iranians kidnap UK servicemen, well that is okay. If Iran threatens Israel with a nuclear Armageddon that is fine – those Jews are fascist Shylock’s anyways. Iran should have the bomb why not? We do.
From such simpleton logic flows the case against being resolute against Iranian Mullah inspired fascism. Like the pre-war forecasts in Iraq so the prewar forecasts for a strike on Iran would be the same - except even more exagerrated. By putting the casus belli for the Iraq war all on WMD the Bush administration 'dumbed down' the 23 good reasons to go to war, in the expectation of an easy, cheap and internationally sanctioned victory. By trying to take a short cut, the Bushies short-circuited any claims to the moral high ground and have destroyed their own credibility, so much so, that an attack on Iran is almost a political impossibility.
This may change if the Iranians are still found killing American soldiers in Iraq in a few months time but even then, I doubt very much that the left wing US media or the political opportunists sniffing a victory in the 2008 US elections would take much notice or allow another 'pre-emptive' strike, even after a few hundred American boys have been murdered by the Iranian regime.
As with pulling out of Iraq in 1991, we just had to return and do a dirtier and hader job later. So it will be with Iran. We can ignore it, rationalise it, put our hands over our ears and hum madly, but at some point a war
with Iranian fascism is inevitable. To win such a conflict we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, that much is obvious. In the longer term breaking Iran; destroying OPEC and imposing ourselves on the Middle East is a necessity. Our economies, civilization, security and moral standards demand it.
I even have a good name for the next war, the one with a resurgent Persia, we can call it: ‘The neo-imperialist crusade to end Persian fascism and the pagan Arab empire.’ That sounds like a winner.
For those who are historically-challenged it might do you some good to understand that appeasement, weakness and cowardice are not intelligent options with dealing with a fascism. Perhaps the screaming socialists might want to read the history of the 1400 years of Arab-Islamic jihad against the world; the rise and fall of Nazism, Communism, or the destruction of various oriental empires to understand that fascist violence mandates military strength and preparedness. Kow-towing to Asian, Muslim or fascist sensitivity is remarkably unintelligent.
Iran wants a confrontation. Its regime of mad Mullahs needs external enemies to solidify domestic control. The big unknown in Iran is how much real support does the regime have? It is not too wise to expect that a majority or even a significant minority of Iranians desire a Western friendly regime or massive institutional change. Don’t expect that a large segment of the population wants to replace the Mullahs with something that is pro-Western or pro-reform. After all the British incorrectly surmised that most Germans wanted to be rid of Hitler. This was simply untrue.
In dealing with a state like Iran you have to implement 3 main ideas. 1. Employ international sanctions, including cutting off all financing and use diplomatic pressure to force the Iranians to stop their nuclear program and renounce violence against Israel. Make the sanctions real, and make them hurt. 2. Seal off the borders between Iran and Afghanistan and Iraq, and patrol all waters just outside the Iranian line of sovereignty. Make your military muscle obvious. 3. Prepare plans for a large scale military strike using land, sea and air forces, and a pincher movement from Afghanistan and Iraq into Teheran.
None of these is even being considered and the Iranians know it.
Europe and Russia flaunt sanctions just like they did during the 1990s in Iraq. For 10 years the UN led by the wonderful transparent democrats in Germany, France, Russia and China made billions of dollars in illegal fees and revenues in Iraq while 300.000 Iraqi’s were murdered; and the country became a nexus of money, terror, fascism and illegal weapons of all varieties and manufacture. The same debacle goes on today in Iran. The Europeans and Russians talk about sanctions but are hypocritically increasing their trade and investment. They could care less about the threat Iran poses to the region or the fact that Iran funds terror world wide.
Even more dangerous is the real possibility that the US congress might actually force a pullout from the Middle East in 2008 or 2009. The repercussions of cutting and running from the Middle East will be felt for two generations.
Running from Beirut in 1983; Iraq in 1991; and Somalia in 1994-5, only emboldened Islam. It did not deter it. Giving Iraq over to fascists and Iranian agents will herald a gigantic defeat for Western civilization. Iran sensing that the West is weak and perhaps on the brink of strategic defeat in Iraq and elsewhere, is now looking to embolden its own tactical advantage and leverage.
Perversely from the Western viewpoint we are on the cusp, for the first time in Iraq’s bloody and violent history, of attaining a semblance of a Constitutional democracy that is pro-Western. It is not sensible to withdraw from Iraq and lose forward ground bases against Iran. If Iran is truly the threat that most of the world thinks it is, what geopolitical or military logic is there in throwing away your forward base of operations in Iraq? You can’t invade and destroy the Iranian regime from Kuwait. Check a map. You need to quickly effect a pincer movement from east and west towards Teheran. This is yet another good reason why we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the chattering moral relativists and socialist defeatists logic is irrelevant. The war is lost, all wars are bad, and can’t we all just get along ?
As Victor Hanson commented:
“Prewar forecasts warned a worried public that we might lose 3,000-5,000 soldiers just in removing Saddam. Three years later, we have removed him and sponsored a democracy to boot, and at far less than those feared numbers. But we react as if we had faced unexpected numbers of casualties.
Despite the fact that al Qaedists were in Kurdistan, Al Zarqawi was in Saddam’s Baghdad, terrorists like Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were sheltered by Iraqis, and recent archives disclose that hundreds of Iraqi terrorists were annually housed and schooled by the Baathists, we are nevertheless assured that there was no tie between Saddam and terrorists. Those who suggest there were lines of support are caricatured as liars and Bush propagandists.
Apparently, we are asked to believe that the al Qaedists whom Iraqis and Americans kill each day in Iraq largely joined up because we removed Saddam Hussein.”
For Iran the hyperbole is the same. Endless dialogue with mad fascists is the preferred program. If Iranians kidnap UK servicemen, well that is okay. If Iran threatens Israel with a nuclear Armageddon that is fine – those Jews are fascist Shylock’s anyways. Iran should have the bomb why not? We do.
From such simpleton logic flows the case against being resolute against Iranian Mullah inspired fascism. Like the pre-war forecasts in Iraq so the prewar forecasts for a strike on Iran would be the same - except even more exagerrated. By putting the casus belli for the Iraq war all on WMD the Bush administration 'dumbed down' the 23 good reasons to go to war, in the expectation of an easy, cheap and internationally sanctioned victory. By trying to take a short cut, the Bushies short-circuited any claims to the moral high ground and have destroyed their own credibility, so much so, that an attack on Iran is almost a political impossibility.
As with pulling out of Iraq in 1991, we just had to return and do a dirtier and hader job later. So it will be with Iran. We can ignore it, rationalise it, put our hands over our ears and hum madly, but at some point a war
with Iranian fascism is inevitable. To win such a conflict we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, that much is obvious. In the longer term breaking Iran; destroying OPEC and imposing ourselves on the Middle East is a necessity. Our economies, civilization, security and moral standards demand it.
I even have a good name for the next war, the one with a resurgent Persia, we can call it: ‘The neo-imperialist crusade to end Persian fascism and the pagan Arab empire.’ That sounds like a winner.
(ArticlesBase SC #383052)
