Thursday, July 07, 2005

A Measured Response

I propose we respond to this latest atrocity, this attack on our staunchest ally, with overwhelming force. My proposal has the advantage of giving the Demonrats and the Chinese what they have been clamoring for - a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is only one thing the terrorists and those who support them understand, and I suggest we give it to them. We will not cower from cowards. What am I talking about? A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words:


Blogger Aaron said...

Iran actually has a proficient military, is far more nationalistic than Iraq, is twice the size and 3 times the population of Iraq... and had nothing to do with either 9/11 or the bombings in London.

sheesh, it would be like Roosevelt responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.

9:17 PM  
Blogger dw said...

Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and has effectively been at war with the US since 1979.

11:59 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...

Iran was an enemy of the Taliban regime that harbored and trained the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11. Teheran backed Massoud, the leader of the northern alliance against the Taliban. After 9/11, there were pro-American memorial parades in Iran - sanctioned by the State - in condolences for the victims. Iran then offered their airspace to be used by US fighters conducting operations against Afghanistan.

On top of that, reformers swept all the elections in Iran in late 90's, and both the US and Britain had made tremendous, and painstaking, progress bringing Iran back into the international community. Then, Bush made his unthinking "axis of evil" speech. British foreign secretary Jack Straw - one of the staunchest American supporters in what is our closest foreign ally - was stunned. He lameneted that that one thoughtless remark for domestic political gain "had single-handedly destroyed 10 years of careful diplomacy". The rug was effectively pulled out from under the reformists, and US hostility only served to embolden and strengthen the hand of the hardliners.

The US could certainly invade Iran, but we could not occupy or affect long term change there through military means. We simply do not have the troops for such a misadventure, and would face resistance that would make Iraq look like a Sunday stroll through the park.

It is true that Iran does sponsor terrorist groups that attack Israel. However, that is the Israeli's problem (and we cretainly provide the ungrateful Israelis with enough military hardware to deal with the problem on their own). Iran has not been known to support or harbor al-qaeda, which is a Sunni organization that regularly butts heads with Shi'a dominated Iran.

It is interesting that you neo-cons have your eye on Iran, as unrealistic as those naive plans may be. Nearly all of the 9/11 highkackers came from Saudi Arabia - none were from either Iran or Iraq. Further, Saudi Arabia funds and harbors al-qaeda and other groups that attack civilians in the West. Saudi Arabia is currently funding Jihadists that are involved with attacks on our soldiers in Iraq. And I am sure that the bombings in London will in some way be tracked back to Saudi Arabia. Knowing all of that, we should respond by.... invading Iran???

1:26 PM  
Blogger dw said...

Iran is the mother of all terrorist groups. If this is a war against terrorism, then the current Iranian government needs to go at some point. To be honest, this post was a bit "tongue in cheek" when I posted it, but now that I read your comment, I am more convinced that invading Iran would be prudent. (Anything that pisses off liberals would probably be prudent.)

You said: "The US could certainly invade Iran, but we could not occupy or affect long term change there through military means."

Who says we want to occupy it? With Iraq and Afghanistan as allies, and a largely pro-western population in Iran, all that would be necessary would be removal of the head. We wouldn't even need the army. The USAF could take out the mullahs, no problem. Just declare all of Iran one big "no-fly zone" until their terrorist president gives himself up or is dead. That's be a good start. Once the tyrants are gone, if Iran were to join the rest of the civilized world and allow its people to govern themselves and the freedom to associate with the rest of the world, I wouldn't even mind them having nukes. We'd be so much safer, and the Iranians happier. It is nukes in the hands of a terrorist regime (a handful of very evil men), which has consistently referred to my country as "the Great Satan" for more than 25 years now, and has spawned groups that blow people up all over the world, that is intolerable. Taking a defensive posture will not win this fight, and we cannot allow the world's leading sponsor or terrorism perpetual "deniability." Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism, and therefore should be held responsible for terrorist acts.

You say they mostly kill joooooos so why should we care? Would you say that if they were just killing French? Maybe you would, but I don't buy your premise anyway. They're not just killing jews. They're killing a lot of arabs and they've exported their bombers and beheaders to southeast Asia as well. Iran is the honor killing, rape, sharia, decapitation capital of the world. If a woman is raped in Iran, she gets stoned... do I need to explain how that works? Little boys take turns throwing rocks at a half-burried girls head one at a time until her face falls off and she stops screaming then a "doctor" checks her pulse at the neck to see if she's dead and if she's not then the big boys get to throw rocks. Yippee! Wonderful place, Iran. You think I'm kidding? Ask any Iranian! Or Saudi for that matter. You think we should go after Saudi Arabia instead? Fine, but the thing is, their government and police are actually cooperating with us. They actually have real battles with al Qaeda groups, while in Iran they hide al Qaeda and give money to suicide bombers in Basra as well as Ramallah and Beirut.

Your argument that we could not change Iran is just thoughtless. All it would take would be jets. (And bomb-sniffing dogs to catch the suicide bombers they will send into Iraq, though they already do that.) They could invade Iraq in response, but by your logic, why should we care - that's Iraq's problem not ours. Besides, I think there's enough hardware in Iraq to defend it.

I don't expect it to happen soon though, unless it were in direct response to a large-scale terrorist attack. Time is actually on our side since our military technology is just now paying some nice dividends (and no, I'm not talking about ray guns, though those things are real). So Iran has nukes. Yippee.

3:12 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home