Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Saber Rattling for Iran

I was reading an op-ed from the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/b4w48) and feelings of déjà vu and dread came over me. I couldn’t help recall all the rhetoric from the left when the President was beating the drums of war against Iraq. They were all for it. The loudest voices against it now were the loudest voices for it then. Most of these hot-air bags had already given long-winded speeches back in 1998 stating that Saddam had to go, that his use and possession of WMDs was an intolerable situation, yadda, yadda, yadda. Now they are all calling Bush a liar for saying the Saddam had WMDs. F**cking hypocrites, all; and now they are all saying the same things about Iran. “the idea of a nuclear armed Iran is intolerable, yadda, yadda, yadda. (I wonder if they have their ‘Bush is a liar’ speeches ready to go for after (if) we go and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities?

What say you liberals out there? Care to go on record now, before the ‘fun’ begins, as to what the President should or shouldn’t do? According to the op-ed, “Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman, have this month faced the Iranian Choice -- and both endorsed military action.” Of course, ever the one to avoid taking a real stand, John Kerry said we should take the problem to the UN if diplomacy fails. Right, like that has ever done any good. The UN was rattling their empty saber sheath for over ten years before we went into Iraq; can we wait ten years for the Iranians to stop doing what they’re doing and ‘play nice’ with their neighbors?

John Kerry, the war hero, figures if we dump it on the UN and Iran blows up Tel Aviv, well the UN can be blamed and we’re in the clear. Never mind the actual people killed in Israel, just as long as he can ‘blame’ somebody else, that’s good enough for him. The amount of courage it must have taken for him to state that publicly is amazing, isn’t it? Just make it somebody else’s problem. He would make a President that Jimmy Carter could look up to.

Is there anyone out there foolish enough to think it’ll be more than three or four years before Iran is ‘testing’ their new toys in Tel Aviv? They are building a bomb and that is exactly what they said they’d do with it.

So the Democrats are putting the President into a lose-lose scenario and demanding he act. He’ll be blamed for all the deaths resulting from an Iranian bomb, if he doesn’t do anything about it; and he’ll be called a nuclear madman, if he does what needs doing.

What exactly can he do? Invade Iran? That’ll be costly in lives and money way beyond what we’ve incurred to date with Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Who would help us? Sanctions won’t work because China will supply Iran with whatever they need, in order to get their oil, as may Russia.

What about my favorite solution: nuke their nuclear facilities with cruise missiles before an invasion? The biggest problem with that, of course, is the response from China and Russia. Are we prepared for another cold-war? How could we even be sure that we got all of them without invading afterwards? They have been digging deeper and deeper, burying their facilities in order to hide their activity.

So, think about it. I’m pretty sure I know what the conservatives on this list would want: follow the cruise missiles with the Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy (they have a lot of coastline). What do my liberal friends think we should do? That’s what I’d like to know and have on record for after its begun.

No comments: