The Case for Bombing Iran

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, May 16, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Iran needs to be taken care of sooner or later

    What are your thoughts?


    Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what September 11, 2001 did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the cold war was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the cold war, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

    What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department’s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

    The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to “wipe Israel off the map”—a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

    But Ahmadinejad’s ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel. He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail by themselves would do the trick.

    Nor are Ahmadinejad’s ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as “a world without America.” Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle, at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.

    Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is that Ahmadinejad’s dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions. To understand why, an analogy with World War III may help.

    For the complete article

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882
     
  2. Rosotar
    Offline

    Rosotar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +45
    More of the same crap that you guys said about Iraq. You were wrong about that one.

    Your credibility is shot!
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    By all means, lets keep appeasing the terrorists
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    You and your ilk want to make every living Muslim in the world hate us dont you?

    Man for the day when we dont have the likes of this mental midgit running our foriegn policy.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    for shame!

    calling terrorists what they are, and saying what needs to done
     
  6. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    It will come to it eventually with Iran. No President, not even a Democrat, will permit the Iranians to possess nuclear weapons. Consider that it is bad enough to have the marginally secular military and Musharraf in control of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Can you imagine if Islamic extremists in that country had their hands on the button? It was extremist Islamic elements from Pakistan (along with the Russians and maybe the Chinese) that have helped Iran develop its nuclear program. But not even the Russians and Chinese want the Iranians to possess nukes. Can you imagine the Mullahs with a nuclear gun? Hezbollah will run completely wild, and what will we be able to do? Back them down with harsh rhetoric? No, the Iranians cannot be permitted nuclear weapons under any circumstances. All but the very furthest, most anti West extreme left agrees. If sanctions, boycotts, naval blockades, etc., do not get the Mullahs to cease and desist, then the Air Force and Navy have to go in.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Little Adolf Ahmadinejad wants nukes so he can "wipe Israel off the map", then he will give them to terrorists to attack the US

    The left actually thinks they can reason with this modern day Hitler

    They are following in the footsteps of Nevill Chamberlain
     

Share This Page