Saturday, March 31, 2007
Fisking a Reader Comment
Here is what lefty reader/commenter peter b took a long time to write and my responses thereto in a different color. He's tripping off the bad things from the fighting in Iraq.
1. As a result of the Iraq affair, Iran has been allowed to become the most powerful country in the middle east and a much bigger threat than Sadahm (sic) ever was. I'd argue that both Pakistan and Saudia Arabia are much more powerful than Iran, which can't even pay its bills to Russia, has to import gasoline, and has an economy teetering on the brink of collapse. Iran hasn't become more of a threat, so much as you finally have woken up to the threat Iran has been since 1979. You're use of the word 'allowed' is telling in that it presupposes that we somehow control other countries and that any action against Iran would have been acceptable to you opposition types.
2. As a result of the Iraq affair, we have diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere in effectivly fighting terrorists. It's easiest to fight terrorists when they come out to fight so there is no more effective way to fight them than to draw them into Iraq and kill them there, which we are most certainly doing.
3. The costs of the war have been enormous, much higher than predicted, and greatly outweigh the benefits. And the thousands of American lives lost and the countless more ruined, are only part of the costs. I am unaware of any war that didn't cost a lot of money and take many lives but perhaps you have a greater historical knowledge. Compare the cost we undertook to defeat just Germany, who never attacked us, in WWII--dozens of times more expensive in dollar cost and lives.
4. After 9/11, the USA was looked on with favor by most other countries. But Bush blew it: he (sic) failed to rally world opinion, he failed to get the Arab world on our side, he failed to let the inspections process run its course, and he failed to plan properly for the postwar occupation. The result is a loss of American power and prestige, a diminished chance of Iraq becoming a pluralistic democracy, and an al-Qaeda that's been given a second lease on life thanks to George Bush's Queeg-like obsession with Saddam Hussein. Don't let the sympathy after the 9/11 attacks fool you, our nation is not popular in the rest of the world because we actually do things (because with the only really functional military force--we're the only ones who can). Most of the Arab world is on our side where it counts (anti-terrorism). The inspections would never have been successful. No war plan survives the first skirmish. Our power has rarely been greater and prestige is overrated. Iraq is a pluralistic republic with democratic institutions now thanks 100% to the coalition. Are you really that delusional? They had no chance of being that with Saddam and his sociopathic sons alive. Al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self but what I call the Jihadi movement is still strong--our long struggle against it has just begun. Ahab has an obesssion--Queeg is paranoid and perhaps delusional; but in either literary illusion, finishing the Gulf War made perfect sense as even your ilk will admit in just a few years.
5. Does anyone dispute the fact that the world is less safe than it was before we invaded Iraq? Al-Qaida is still capable of causing harm to us in our homeland. Osama bin Laden is still at large and able to lead events from some relatively secure place, probably in Pakistan; Almost all of our shipping containers slip in without inspection; our borders, particularly our southern one, remain alarmingly porous; our first responders are still absurldly underfunded. The world remains a very dangerous place due to Islamic extremists but two (three if you count Somalia) formerly safe staging areas have been made very unsafe, so that's clear progress. You're repeating yourself about al Qaeda but bin Laden is not about to lead events. Hamas is much more active and effective lately than al Qaeda. Most of the shipping containers don't need inspection, but we should do a better job with some of them. I can't explain our nation's nearly complete failure on the border but I'm as unhappy as you are about it. Our police, firefighters, EMT and hospital are good to great, I really have no idea what you're talking about here, as if response to an attack is the same thing as defense against that attack.
6. tHe (sic) occupation of an Islamic country by the United States has resulted in a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. And this is tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the (sic) administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat. We occupy two Islamic countries, but you have no evidence to support your statement that it is a recuritment tool. They seemed to be getting all the men they wanted before 9/11. And Iraq was a training ground for the al Qaeda franchise in Iraq before we invaded. You have no idea whether there are more Jihadists now than in a world where 9/11 never happened or it happened and we did nothing or merely less. If we take bin Laden at his word, then a strong reaction to attack and a forward defense in a logical place would be a strong horse which would diminish Jihadi action. It is mainly the left that has lost what little will it had to confront the serious threat of Islamic extremism. I and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us. The military is in good spirits, mainly, battle hardened, and well suited to fight this long struggle The 'broken Army' lefty talking point is about the stupidest one out there.
7. We cannot win the civil war in Iraq. The Sunni and Shia hate each other. No amount of dead infidels is going to change that. And neither of them want us there. We're not fighting a civil war in Iraq. We are providing security while the political vacuum left from Saddam's fall fills. It's taking a while but we are progressing. The Shia/Sunni divide is the most overrated thing your ilk likes to spout--it's similar to the Protestant/Catholic divide and Sunni and Shia live peacefully side by side throughout the Muslim world. If Iraq truly wanted us out--we'd go.
So what do we do now. (sic) I have no idea. I believe you.
1. As a result of the Iraq affair, Iran has been allowed to become the most powerful country in the middle east and a much bigger threat than Sadahm (sic) ever was. I'd argue that both Pakistan and Saudia Arabia are much more powerful than Iran, which can't even pay its bills to Russia, has to import gasoline, and has an economy teetering on the brink of collapse. Iran hasn't become more of a threat, so much as you finally have woken up to the threat Iran has been since 1979. You're use of the word 'allowed' is telling in that it presupposes that we somehow control other countries and that any action against Iran would have been acceptable to you opposition types.
2. As a result of the Iraq affair, we have diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere in effectivly fighting terrorists. It's easiest to fight terrorists when they come out to fight so there is no more effective way to fight them than to draw them into Iraq and kill them there, which we are most certainly doing.
3. The costs of the war have been enormous, much higher than predicted, and greatly outweigh the benefits. And the thousands of American lives lost and the countless more ruined, are only part of the costs. I am unaware of any war that didn't cost a lot of money and take many lives but perhaps you have a greater historical knowledge. Compare the cost we undertook to defeat just Germany, who never attacked us, in WWII--dozens of times more expensive in dollar cost and lives.
4. After 9/11, the USA was looked on with favor by most other countries. But Bush blew it: he (sic) failed to rally world opinion, he failed to get the Arab world on our side, he failed to let the inspections process run its course, and he failed to plan properly for the postwar occupation. The result is a loss of American power and prestige, a diminished chance of Iraq becoming a pluralistic democracy, and an al-Qaeda that's been given a second lease on life thanks to George Bush's Queeg-like obsession with Saddam Hussein. Don't let the sympathy after the 9/11 attacks fool you, our nation is not popular in the rest of the world because we actually do things (because with the only really functional military force--we're the only ones who can). Most of the Arab world is on our side where it counts (anti-terrorism). The inspections would never have been successful. No war plan survives the first skirmish. Our power has rarely been greater and prestige is overrated. Iraq is a pluralistic republic with democratic institutions now thanks 100% to the coalition. Are you really that delusional? They had no chance of being that with Saddam and his sociopathic sons alive. Al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self but what I call the Jihadi movement is still strong--our long struggle against it has just begun. Ahab has an obesssion--Queeg is paranoid and perhaps delusional; but in either literary illusion, finishing the Gulf War made perfect sense as even your ilk will admit in just a few years.
5. Does anyone dispute the fact that the world is less safe than it was before we invaded Iraq? Al-Qaida is still capable of causing harm to us in our homeland. Osama bin Laden is still at large and able to lead events from some relatively secure place, probably in Pakistan; Almost all of our shipping containers slip in without inspection; our borders, particularly our southern one, remain alarmingly porous; our first responders are still absurldly underfunded. The world remains a very dangerous place due to Islamic extremists but two (three if you count Somalia) formerly safe staging areas have been made very unsafe, so that's clear progress. You're repeating yourself about al Qaeda but bin Laden is not about to lead events. Hamas is much more active and effective lately than al Qaeda. Most of the shipping containers don't need inspection, but we should do a better job with some of them. I can't explain our nation's nearly complete failure on the border but I'm as unhappy as you are about it. Our police, firefighters, EMT and hospital are good to great, I really have no idea what you're talking about here, as if response to an attack is the same thing as defense against that attack.
6. tHe (sic) occupation of an Islamic country by the United States has resulted in a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. And this is tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the (sic) administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat. We occupy two Islamic countries, but you have no evidence to support your statement that it is a recuritment tool. They seemed to be getting all the men they wanted before 9/11. And Iraq was a training ground for the al Qaeda franchise in Iraq before we invaded. You have no idea whether there are more Jihadists now than in a world where 9/11 never happened or it happened and we did nothing or merely less. If we take bin Laden at his word, then a strong reaction to attack and a forward defense in a logical place would be a strong horse which would diminish Jihadi action. It is mainly the left that has lost what little will it had to confront the serious threat of Islamic extremism. I and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us. The military is in good spirits, mainly, battle hardened, and well suited to fight this long struggle The 'broken Army' lefty talking point is about the stupidest one out there.
7. We cannot win the civil war in Iraq. The Sunni and Shia hate each other. No amount of dead infidels is going to change that. And neither of them want us there. We're not fighting a civil war in Iraq. We are providing security while the political vacuum left from Saddam's fall fills. It's taking a while but we are progressing. The Shia/Sunni divide is the most overrated thing your ilk likes to spout--it's similar to the Protestant/Catholic divide and Sunni and Shia live peacefully side by side throughout the Muslim world. If Iraq truly wanted us out--we'd go.
So what do we do now. (sic) I have no idea. I believe you.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 2:10 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
1. If Iran has been such a threat since 1979, why have we gone to war twice with Iraq during that period? Why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran? The bottom line is that by removing a Sunni like Saddam who was a buffer to Iran, and replacing him with a Shi'a government friendly to Iran, we made Iran that much more stronger. a ridiculous result that was clearly not in our best interests. A bad effect of the Iraq affair.
2. Yeah, we really drew Osama out into the open didn't we.
3. There you go with your absurd comparison of the Iraq affair to WW11 again. This is an absurd comparison, drop it. Of course all wars are costly, indeed I submit people who have actually served and who have been in combat know that far better than you do. And since they are so costly, we ought to choose our wars with great care. The US interests served by the Iraq affair simply don't balance out the costs involve, which the great majority of Americans now agree with.
4. Dam the logic full spleen ahead. You throw out a lot of allegations here with nothing to back them up. I submit that if we have to wait a "few more years" for the Iraq affair to bear fruit, even your kids may have to go over there and serve.
5. The bottom line is that costs of the Iraq Affair have not produced the benefits in terms of security that would justify it and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us.
6. "I and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us."
As long as you don't have to pay for it and somebody else's kids do the fighting. This nonsense that the right is more committed to the war on terror because they remain in the small minority who want to continue the status quo in Iraq, is not a convincing argument.
"It is mainly the left that has lost what little will it had to confront the serious threat of Islamic extremism"
What will has the right ever shown? You won't even pay tax increases to support the war. This is kind of attack is simply chickenhawk hypocracy that we have seen for the last four years. You will never convince anyone of the correctness of your position (as the declining poll numbers continually show) when noncombatants like you continue to talk about "your will" and the other side's lack thereof.
7. "The Shia/Sunni divide is the most overrated thing your ilk likes to spout"
That’s the kind of thinking that got us bogged down here in the first place.
2. Yeah, we really drew Osama out into the open didn't we.
3. There you go with your absurd comparison of the Iraq affair to WW11 again. This is an absurd comparison, drop it. Of course all wars are costly, indeed I submit people who have actually served and who have been in combat know that far better than you do. And since they are so costly, we ought to choose our wars with great care. The US interests served by the Iraq affair simply don't balance out the costs involve, which the great majority of Americans now agree with.
4. Dam the logic full spleen ahead. You throw out a lot of allegations here with nothing to back them up. I submit that if we have to wait a "few more years" for the Iraq affair to bear fruit, even your kids may have to go over there and serve.
5. The bottom line is that costs of the Iraq Affair have not produced the benefits in terms of security that would justify it and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us.
6. "I and most Republicans (regrettably not all) are as strong as ever for fighting the war that is being waged against us."
As long as you don't have to pay for it and somebody else's kids do the fighting. This nonsense that the right is more committed to the war on terror because they remain in the small minority who want to continue the status quo in Iraq, is not a convincing argument.
"It is mainly the left that has lost what little will it had to confront the serious threat of Islamic extremism"
What will has the right ever shown? You won't even pay tax increases to support the war. This is kind of attack is simply chickenhawk hypocracy that we have seen for the last four years. You will never convince anyone of the correctness of your position (as the declining poll numbers continually show) when noncombatants like you continue to talk about "your will" and the other side's lack thereof.
7. "The Shia/Sunni divide is the most overrated thing your ilk likes to spout"
That’s the kind of thinking that got us bogged down here in the first place.
# posted by 
: 4:05 PM
: 4:05 PM
Edit of point 5.
The bottom line is that costs of the Iraq Affair have not produced the benefits in terms of security that would justify it.
sorry.
The bottom line is that costs of the Iraq Affair have not produced the benefits in terms of security that would justify it.
sorry.
# posted by : 4:08 PM
: 4:08 PM
Roger,
I agree w/ your analysis of Ahab's and Queeg's issues.
Your thinking is perfectly logical if you accept two premises:
1. The completion of the Gulf War is the central front, or at least the most compelling front, in the War agaist Terrorism. I will accept the war against Islamic Extremism also
2. The nascent democracy in Iraq will survive our w/drawal.
I happen to disagree w/ both premises. I have read your legalistic justifaction for the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe the was is illegal. I also do not believe it was essential to our national security. Please convince me.
Again, I will sing my litany of: "The sectarian violence in Iraq was perfectly foreseeable to any one familar w/ that country's history." Regrettably, in my opinion, the neoconservative ideologues who pushed for war were wholly ignorant of Iraq's history.
Our attempt at rebuilding Iraq was a dismal failure. Fiasco comes close to describing it. Not only have we failed to upgrade the infrastructure which had degraded under Saddam but also we have failed to bring it back to prewar levels.
The violence has persuaded a significant portion of Iraq's professional class and intelligensia to flee the country. It is difficult to practice medicine or teach at a university if you are dead.
You believe that sectarian viloence will somehow peter out as it did in Northern Ireland.
I will remind you that however clannish the Irish may be, they are not tribal like the Iraqis.
OK, so it is a good idea to turn an Islamic nation into a war zone b/c it attracts terrorists and allows us the opportunity to kill them?
I think you are being kind to Udey and Qusey. I would have used the word "psychopathic."
I have to agree w/ peter b on 2. I believe resources diverted to Iraq would have been better used in Afghanistan.
I am throwing the gauntlet down again: Defend your position that Iraq in 1992 was a staging ground for terrorism. Remember, 1992 Iraq. Remind ame gain how it was a training ground for the Al Qaeda franchise in Iraq. Just b/c Dick Cheney implies doesn't make it so.
Regards,
T
I agree w/ your analysis of Ahab's and Queeg's issues.
Your thinking is perfectly logical if you accept two premises:
1. The completion of the Gulf War is the central front, or at least the most compelling front, in the War agaist Terrorism. I will accept the war against Islamic Extremism also
2. The nascent democracy in Iraq will survive our w/drawal.
I happen to disagree w/ both premises. I have read your legalistic justifaction for the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe the was is illegal. I also do not believe it was essential to our national security. Please convince me.
Again, I will sing my litany of: "The sectarian violence in Iraq was perfectly foreseeable to any one familar w/ that country's history." Regrettably, in my opinion, the neoconservative ideologues who pushed for war were wholly ignorant of Iraq's history.
Our attempt at rebuilding Iraq was a dismal failure. Fiasco comes close to describing it. Not only have we failed to upgrade the infrastructure which had degraded under Saddam but also we have failed to bring it back to prewar levels.
The violence has persuaded a significant portion of Iraq's professional class and intelligensia to flee the country. It is difficult to practice medicine or teach at a university if you are dead.
You believe that sectarian viloence will somehow peter out as it did in Northern Ireland.
I will remind you that however clannish the Irish may be, they are not tribal like the Iraqis.
OK, so it is a good idea to turn an Islamic nation into a war zone b/c it attracts terrorists and allows us the opportunity to kill them?
I think you are being kind to Udey and Qusey. I would have used the word "psychopathic."
I have to agree w/ peter b on 2. I believe resources diverted to Iraq would have been better used in Afghanistan.
I am throwing the gauntlet down again: Defend your position that Iraq in 1992 was a staging ground for terrorism. Remember, 1992 Iraq. Remind ame gain how it was a training ground for the Al Qaeda franchise in Iraq. Just b/c Dick Cheney implies doesn't make it so.
Regards,
T
# posted by : 4:55 PM
: 4:55 PM
1. Because we chose under Carter to ignore the war like act of invading the embassy and it was ever harder after that to get the gumption to do anything real. Iraq "friendly to Iran", what are you kidding me? They fought a war with nearly a million dead a dn poison gas attacks two decades ago. Iran is actually weaker now but in your topsy turvy world I don't expect you to see that. 2. What? 3. Human nature is relatively constant so recent history is always helpful to understand current events which will soon be history. Stay ignorant of the parallels if you wish, just don't expect me to be convinced by you. We do pick our wars with care which is why we attacked Iraq and not Iran at the start of the 90s because Iraq had invaded Kuwait where Iran worked behind the scene with cover. That a mojority of the guys who can't name the Vice President have an opinion on the war different than mine makes me doubt my opion not in the slightest. One man with courage makes a majority, I'd add with historical knowledge and a modicum of analytical skills 4. My cousin is going; my children are in college and don't appear to have a desire to join the military despite what I have talked to them about. I'm not sure how this is relevant. 5. Says you, winning a war usually involves either taking away from the other side the means of waging war or producing in the other side the desire no longer to fight. Fighting back does both of those, cowering at home does neither. You never sound so foolish than to say fighting back makes things worse. All your life's experience should tell you differently. 6. We are funding the war with taxes collected (which are up because of the rate cut). I'm willing to have a bake sale if they need it. Chickenhawk is the last refuge of a defeatist who has run out of even psuedo argument. You did well to only hint at it early on and come out with it this late in your reply. Come up with evidence that the Democrats support our fight either in Iraq or in the wider war. A quote, a position by leadership. Anything? I believe crickets will chirp in response to this request. I'm going to post now so I don't lose this but I'm not finished.
Other people's kids will always be doing the fighting, you moron, unless we have a hundred thousand armies with membership of just one kin group. You want to raise tax rates, even if that actually cuts tax revenues, because you are a myopic, lockstep Democrat with nary a clear original thought in your head. To this point in your reply, I have yet to hear a valid point of fact or analysis. Mere repetition just isn't cutting it. 7. Bogged down huh, you mean like in a quagmire? I've been hearing lefties use that tired and inapt analogy since 1969. Then the troops fight magnificently again and defeat the enemy but the left still calls out quagmire at the drop of a helmet liner. Thanks, pete, for the comments but you are definately not reaching me and I fear you are too ignorant (not stupid) of military history to be reached by me. On to Tony.
You've been attacked, boldly and successfully, by a terrorist organization being harbored in Afghanistan. Attacking there after an ultimatum is a no brainer. Then what? Two nations stand out as real problems--Iraq and Iran (2/3 of the Axis of Evil). One of them makes sense but which one? Hussein is paying $25,000 per terrorist bomber in Israel and has set up the terrorist retirement camp in Baghdad. (He also is not living up to hardly any of the cease fire agreements but I guess that is a legalistic argument) Here's a partial list: Saddam provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach." Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who for a time led Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq untill we killed him.
Here is a link to Christopher Hitchens about the subject:
http://point-b.blogs.com/point_b/2005/07/radio_blogger.html
Why 1992? Who cares what was going on then? It's what was going on in 2002 that matters. Richard Minitner has a great article, and Stephen Hayes has a whole book, on the subject.
So Iraq seems the logical choice for legalistic reasons and as I have repeatedly said, to set up a forward defense where our armed guys and girls have a chance to shoot back or, even better, shoot first (flypaper is a bonus, if it exists) because we were going to be there a while snyway providing security in the power vacuum we created deposing Saddam. The Sunnis not surprisingly fought us but so did al Qaeda in Iraq so if we leave now with the security job half done and the al Qaeda types still in the field, that's a real and a perceived defeat. That would be bad. The movement of the intelligentsia is an important (and troubling) sign of success and failure in Iraq. It's tough to get a firm read on it though. So my response is: forward defense is a necessary requirement of this particular war and Iraq was a logical choice over Iran or any other country. QED. Thanks for the continued comments. You are reaching me with your concern about the history of Iraq (post WWI) and the so called modern state they are now. I'm posting about the extremely bad news over at Powerline, so stay tuned.
You've been attacked, boldly and successfully, by a terrorist organization being harbored in Afghanistan. Attacking there after an ultimatum is a no brainer. Then what? Two nations stand out as real problems--Iraq and Iran (2/3 of the Axis of Evil). One of them makes sense but which one? Hussein is paying $25,000 per terrorist bomber in Israel and has set up the terrorist retirement camp in Baghdad. (He also is not living up to hardly any of the cease fire agreements but I guess that is a legalistic argument) Here's a partial list: Saddam provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach." Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who for a time led Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq untill we killed him.
Here is a link to Christopher Hitchens about the subject:
http://point-b.blogs.com/point_b/2005/07/radio_blogger.html
Why 1992? Who cares what was going on then? It's what was going on in 2002 that matters. Richard Minitner has a great article, and Stephen Hayes has a whole book, on the subject.
So Iraq seems the logical choice for legalistic reasons and as I have repeatedly said, to set up a forward defense where our armed guys and girls have a chance to shoot back or, even better, shoot first (flypaper is a bonus, if it exists) because we were going to be there a while snyway providing security in the power vacuum we created deposing Saddam. The Sunnis not surprisingly fought us but so did al Qaeda in Iraq so if we leave now with the security job half done and the al Qaeda types still in the field, that's a real and a perceived defeat. That would be bad. The movement of the intelligentsia is an important (and troubling) sign of success and failure in Iraq. It's tough to get a firm read on it though. So my response is: forward defense is a necessary requirement of this particular war and Iraq was a logical choice over Iran or any other country. QED. Thanks for the continued comments. You are reaching me with your concern about the history of Iraq (post WWI) and the so called modern state they are now. I'm posting about the extremely bad news over at Powerline, so stay tuned.
Keep those ad hominem attacks coming Roger. Believe me thats a battle you can't win. But as for now I choose not to fight it. (Good luck to your cousin. I guess you do have the will to fight this war.)
# posted by : 11:33 AM
: 11:33 AM
"Iraq "friendly to Iran", what are you kidding me? They fought a war with nearly a million dead a dn poison gas attacks two decades ago. Iran is actually weaker now but in your topsy turvy world I don't expect you to see that."
Who fought that war with Iran? An Iraq controlled by the Sunnis. What do we have now? An Iraq controlled by the Shi'as. End result: replacement of a buffer against Iran with a governmnent that is friendly to them. And if you think iran is "actually weaker now" (what facts support that statement?) why do we continue to hear your neocon friends harping about the need to invade Iran?
Who fought that war with Iran? An Iraq controlled by the Sunnis. What do we have now? An Iraq controlled by the Shi'as. End result: replacement of a buffer against Iran with a governmnent that is friendly to them. And if you think iran is "actually weaker now" (what facts support that statement?) why do we continue to hear your neocon friends harping about the need to invade Iran?
# posted by : 11:43 AM
: 11:43 AM
I'm not sure who is advocating an invasion of Iran, but any urgency about action vis a vis the country stems from its attempt to obtain nuclear weapons. They will be an order of magnitude stronger if they have those. I support doing whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nuke weapons, but my hope is that we can help uncreate the Islamic Republic and send them scampering South Africa like away from such weapons without firing a shot.
Post a Comment
<< Home
