No More Iraqs?!?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jun 27, 2004.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Thought this was interesting. Any thoughts or comments (Links at site)?

    http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000439.html

    June 25, 2004


    Are We Out of Gas?
    It looks to me like the Bush Administration, its namesake doctrine, and America’s race to pre-empt terrorism of mass destruction has run out of gas.

    Jim Hoagland says in The Washington Post he thinks there will be no more Iraqs.

    The threshold for preventive war, for example, will be raised significantly for the immediate future. Intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and the intentions of dictators or terrorist gangs that seem to possess them are unlikely to be sufficiently clear to meet the standards for action demanded by the post-facto doubts and recriminations on Iraq. Intelligence analysis will become even more cautious and ambiguously stated to policymakers. Vulnerability to surprise attack could grow again.

    Widespread disillusionment will also seriously undercut idealistic rationales for deploying U.S. forces overseas. The growing acceptance of humanitarian intervention that gave rise to the slogan "No more Rwandas" is marginalized today by the drumbeat of "No more Iraqs." The mishandling and abuses of the Iraq occupation have negated much of the idealism of the liberation in one long, bloody year.

    I hope he’s wrong but I don’t think he is.

    Look at what’s happening in Iran right now.

    Iran made good on recent threats yesterday and announced that it will resume building equipment essential for a nuclear weapons program, despite its agreement with three major European powers.
    On the one hand, that’s a counterpoint to what Hoagland said. There should be no doubt whatever that Iran wants nukes. It hardly matters if our intelligence is weak and often wrong. Unlike Saddam, the ayatollahs brazenly announce their intentions.

    But it also underscores Hoagland’s point. Iran is getting away with it.

    Were we supposed to feel better because Europe was “handling” this problem? Of course the ayatollahs violated their agreement with Britain, France, and Germany. That’s what rogue dictatorships do. Only fools trust murderous psychopaths who killed their way into power and kill to hold onto power to obey the instructions on a piece of paper waved in their faces by appeasement-minded EU diplomats.

    Where’s Bush? He just blew away the regime next door for less than this.

    We have more than two options here. It’s not a choice between entrusting the safety of the world to Jacques Chirac on the one hand and ramping up for a full-bore invasion and occupation on the other.

    We have hard power, and we have a lot of it. A little sabre-rattling would go a long way with Iran if we’d try. Tell them to knock if off or they’re next. If they call our bluff we don’t have to bomb the capital or change the regime. Just a few pinprick strikes on military targets at night would let them know we’re serious. Don’t think for a minute that wouldn’t scare the pants off ’em.

    I used to think I would vote for Bush because he wouldn’t let Iran go nuclear and Kerry just might. Well, now it looks like neither one of them, or anyone else for that matter, intend to do much about it. Kofi Annan certainly isn't going to pick up the slack.

    The Democrats aren’t much interested in stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. They seem to have forgotten everything they ever knew about nuclear proliferation as they harrumphed themselves into a corner over Saddam. I’m not hearing much from the right about this either, and my guess is because they trust Bush will handle it. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m just not seeing it. Bush might as well be off on a bender in the Bahamas right now.

    One advantage to a Kerry presidency is this: Terror War hawks won’t sit idly by and assume a problem like this will be taken care of. They’ll scream and demand action. And who knows? Maybe they’ll get it. Hardly anyone is demanding Bush do something about Iran. If this keeps up, the mullahs get nukes.

    Posted by Michael at 12:45 AM |
     
  2. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    Thanks to the short sighted thinking of partisan politics, Bush will not do anything to anyone until after the election. Which is really a sad commentary on how the ultra leftist Dhimmicrats have paralyzed our security.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I saw something to this effect somewhere last night, (maybe I need some sleep, ya think?) : 'If Kerry wins, it will make the elections in Spain look like an Iowa student council loss to the terrorists.'

    Don't think that's much of an overstatement.
     
  4. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    I have to hope that people see through the BS and realize what's at stake here. I've got problems with Bush, but none of them matter if we let the jihadists think we are the same as Spain.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Bush needs to keeps his plans for Iran quiet for now. Elections for one but I think it's even more important to see the results in Iraq. If the results are positive and the Iraqi people begin to rise up against the terrorists, this may give Iran some second thoughts. Personally I think the nuke plant is in ashes on someones planning table as we speak.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    What do you think will happen there after the 30th? More violence? Less? Same?

    My guess is the all out assault by the Zaquawi faction bodes well, together with the poll just released. Since they are striking SO hard, they must fear the hand off. Perhaps they will sustain for a bit, but I think they know they won't have the people behind them and the news will get much better, quickly. Just my take.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Mine too-- we shall soon see if our faith in Iraqi pride and desire for peace is justified.
     
  8. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    I think their will be 1 or 2 more huge coordinated attacks on or after the 30th, but I think the average "Ali on the street" is getting fed up with this crap. If you read the Iraqi bloggers you get a sense of optimism but also a simmering rage over Zaquawi and his crew. Any civil war is going to be between the Iraqis and the terrorists and their supporters.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Exactly, I do read and concur with your assessment of the bloggers.
     
  10. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    Don't forget Israel.

    There's no way in hell they'll allow Iran to build nuclear facilities whose products would surely be used against them. Israel took out the nuke facilities that France was building Saddam in the early '80s with surprise a air raid, and they have no choice but to do it again when Iran gets closer to completion. They're hoping the UNSC or USA does something so they don't have to, but they won't hesitate.

    Unfortunately, Bush probably won't make any threats until after the election. To do so would be to play right into Kerry's hands (and I can just hear Ted Kennedy's howls) by beginning another conflict. The Democrats are waiting to pounce in an election year.

    I agree that it doesn't have to be a large conflict, saber rattling probably would do the trick. But U.S. air raids would do nicely too by taking out the projects if our bluff is called.

    I don't care what political leaning you may have, if you hear Bush give an ultimatum, you know that he's going to follow through with it. And if nothing else, you have to respect the man for keeping his word. You can bet your last dollar that the despots of a nation that receives such a threat from the USA will sit up and take notice after Afghanistan and Iraq.

    After Bush is re-elected, and Iraq is up and running, I'll wager that we'll see Iran suddenly begin to play nice.
     

Share This Page