Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

You're exactly right, Ash.

Anon,

I've looked over your links. Some of the stuff I've read before, and somethings were new. I generally discount the opinions of the Commentariate as being little or no better informed than my own opinions. Still they were interesting. I had already read many of the direct quotes from the PNAC documents, and frankly I agree with most of the analysis and the policies proposed. I would have preferred reading the documents directly and without the editorializing of someone who is critical of the PNAC and the policies it recommends. Some read, apparently between the lines of the document, and envision a nightmare world that I don't believe was ever intended. The analysis and policies recommended by the PNAC would have been endorsed by most of our Presidents, of whatever Party, with the possible exceptions of President's Carter and Clinton.

Military strength is essential to the nation's security and well-being, and it is the foundation stone for an effective foreign policy and diplomacy. The military must be credible, and potential enemies should never get the idea that we will never strike back when challenged. A big part of the world depends upon the United States to for their own national security, and they need to be confident that we are steady and will act when necessary in the defense of our interests or the interests of our allies. Use of military force must be moderated, and not over extended ... but that may be hard to do when it is the nation's opponents who choose where and when to challenge us.

If the United States were to falter, the enemies of western values and personal liberty would be a far greater danger than they are today. If the United States were to turn its back on the leadership of the free world, what would remain? If radical Islam can cow the United States what would prevent it from merely changing its focus to some other Great Satan. They don't love the British, or Germans, Swedes or Dutch any better more than they love the United States ... they just have fear and respect us a tiny bit more.

Radical Islamic terrorists and their organizations are no more than a modern version of pirates. They owe no alliegance to any nation, they despise anyone weak enough to follow the rules of behavior or war. These are people who in another time would when captured be tried before an Admiralty Court and hung from the yardarm before sunset. We are more civilized and want to treat them as if they were honorable soldiers instead of murderers.

Rox,

That isn't a "strawman", but in your view it might be bordering on hyperbole. There is a difference, you know.

Asherman wrote:


So in your view, it is not bordering on hyperbole?

In any event, I hope the American people do not fall for the same trick of rallying around the flag and let George Bush start another war, this time possibly with nuclear weapons in the mix. I hope they keep in mind these same 'masterminds' are the same people who have flubbed up Afghanistan and Iraq and "spreading democracy around the world."

Iran is a threat no matter who is in the White House

NATO has flubbed Afghanistan

Iraq, for being as much a mess as it has been made out to be by the media and various liberal organizations remains a work in progress, not a failure. That won't happen until a democrat gets elected and bows to public pressure to cut and run.

Yeah, I was bordering on hyperbole. I like finding phraseology that's a little new and different, and that sometimes takes me to the edge. While saying "Some apparently regard the PNAC as the modern equivalent of the Elders of Zion!" may be a slight exaggeration, it isn't far off the mark. One can find in this political forum some pretty weird expressions of hatred for the President. This IS similar to the use of the Protocols of Zion written by the Czar's secret police and afterwards accepted by many around the world as absolute proof that the Jews are a massive conspiracy fomenting Capitalism, Communism, and even Anarchism.

The PNAC isn't a complete fabrication, it does exist. It does have a statement of principles that many conservatives probably wouldn't have much trouble believing in. It seems to me that the PNAC was in the 1990's an attempt to frame a conservative platform on which to campaign for political office. Boiled down, that platform advocates a strong, credible U.S. military that is used on occasion another tool in our foreign policy kit. The PNAC recognized that the U.S. at the end of the Cold War stood alone as a world superpower, that America's supremacy is a fleeting condition, but that America should make the most of its leadership to advance American-style democracy, values, and interests around the globe. In other PNAC documents a number of foreign policy problems are analyzed and policies recommended. As it happens, the Republican Party (with a lot of help from the Democrats) were elected to National leadership. I don't find it strange that a number of PNAC architects have been prominent in the Bush Administration, nor do I think that it is a sinister thing that some may a bit overzealous.

Neither do I have any problem with American's "rallying around the flag" patriotism. We Should all be patriotic, and unashamed to show it. Anyway, the decision about whether to militarily intervene to check Iran's nuclear weapons program will be made by this President and the National Command Authority. There will be no plebiscite or poll making the decision. I very much doubt that the President will decide on a military strike, but he has a many reasons to take that course as there are to leave Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

I like the idea of spreading democracy around the world, of sharing the benefits of political liberty with those whose history is mired in oppression. I believe that the world's people overwhelmingly want to share in the American Dream, to follow their own consciences, take their own risks and rewards without undue governmental interference. I don't believe that either Afghanistan or Iraq were "flubbed up".

They weren't and are not now "easy", but then little that is worthwhile is "easy". Our own struggle for liberty took brutal and bloody years, and even then would have failed had our Constitution not been framed. Internal differences between sections and philosophies kept the nation in turmoil for better than half a century. During the Civil War it wasn't uncommon to lose 20,000 young soldiers in the space of an afternoon. Our nation, a Republic is a natural arena of competing interests all struggling for political power ... that ain't a bad thing even if it is messy and lunatics on both fringes of the political spectrum seem to exercise an inordinate amount of influence on the middle.

Blaming General Lance L. Smith, US Air Force, now, McGentrix? (He's the chief commanding officer of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.)

Or all the member states? (In that case not the USA and UK, I suppose.)

McG,

We don't know who the Democrats will run, and so its unfair to assert that a Demcoratic President would "bow to public pressure, cut and run". Did FDR, Truman, JFK, or LBJ cut and run when challenged? Did any of them abandon their Presidential duties and responsibilities because some of some vocal opposition?

There is little to suggest that the Democratic Party in the coming canvass will be no more sensitive to the American electorate than they have been in recent years. They will probably be just as disunited and hostile to one another as they are to the GOP.

Strangely, the best thing they may have going for them will be President Bush's decision on what we should do regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program. Whatever decision he take, it will be met with opposition. He will have to be very, very light on his political toes to avoid pissing off half the People ... not a good thing in politics.

LBJ??? I guess you missed the fact that he did indeed cut and run. (Or not run as it were) The consensus is that JFK would have extricated us from Vietnam. Of course, that is a completely separate topic.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would characterize that an American president extricating the country from an unnecessary war would be abandonding his or her Presidential duties.

Then you agree that any failure in Afghanistan does not lie solely on the shoulders of the US?

Well, it took a Republican actually, to "cut and run" from Vietnam....

So according to Out-of-toucherman's view, Nixon abandoned his presidential duty. Bizarre!

In fact, McWhitey advanced the "cut and run" thesis, and Asherman cautioned him about making assumptions in advance of events.

You do none of us any favors by attacking people as you do, especially when you are so evidently confused as to who has said what.

on the other hand big dawg... attacking anyone and everyone could be considered a pre emptive policy, something very much in favor with the geniuses running our country :wink:

You said that "NATO has flubbed Afghanistan".

I asked you, whom you blamed for that.

Neither did I agree or disagree to whatever nor did I mention such at all.

If i don't approve of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad doing that, why would i approve of Roxxxxxxxxxxannnie doing it?

why indeed my friend.... why indeed....

Yep, it was Nixon who bit the bullet and brought the conflict to an end. Now, I know that a lot, maybe even most of you, think we should have left Vietnam years earlier. I used to think so too. Now, I'm not so sure that LBJ wasn't right to stay the course. This is not to deny that the US military doctrine and practice had some serious deficiencies during the Vietnam years. Even so Vietnam was more a political than a military loss.

The mistake, I think, is in thinking of Vietnam as a war in a traditional sense, rather than as only one campaign in the larger Cold War. We became so focused on the media, on flag-draped coffins and mob demonstrations that we lost sight of the bigger picture. Pulling out of Vietnam stanched the blood for a little while, but the level of conflict in other places increased as America tried to withdraw behind its ocean walls. Vietnam was in a way the true birthplace of Al-Quaida and the radical Islamic movements way of waging war against the U.S. and the West.

Asherman: You are just full of it! Yes, we could have killed all the Vietnamese and WON the war! Turned it into a parking lot. And for what? So we could say we were the best and we are never to be beaten? Good grief that kind of thinking is exactly why we are mired down in Iraq. Hubris and no common sense.

Speaking of Common Sense: Thomas Paine would really rake King Georgie Porgie over the coals with his pamphlets. I wish we could ressurect him.

What are you talking about? You claim Asherman is "full of it," yet your remark bears no resemblance whatsoever to what he said. It appears it is you who is "full of it."