| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bomb Iran - OpEd in LA Times |
| 2006-11-19 |
| By Joshua Muravchik Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer. WE MUST bomb Iran. It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere. First, we agreed to our allies' requests that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned. Then, Britain, France and Germany wanted to impose a batch of extremely weak sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to be involved in nuclear activities would have been barred from foreign travel — except for humanitarian or religious reasons — and outside countries would have been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian nuclear projects. But even this was too much for the U.N. Security Council. Russia promptly announced that these sanctions were much too strong. "We cannot support measures … aimed at isolating Iran," declared Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #9 The LA Times new editorial policy? The new Editor making changes in the long standing "hate the US first the US of A is always wrong" policy? What is up with this? Never in 100 years would the LA Times have printed this in the past, look for the rebuttals over the next few days. I quit reading the LA Times because it had become the voice of treason and moonbatery so I will not be aware of any rebuttals. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-19 23:12 |
| #8 may = many |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-19 21:30 |
| #7 I'll-tell-my-mom Darrel... I see... replaced the untenable ethnic cleansing card with a genocide card. The fact is, Darrell, you don't know what Zenster advocates. He may want to put panties on heads of may gazillion islamists, and torture them thus to no end. I am sure that would instill a paralysing terror in their hearts. The keyword, Darell, here is--whatever may work. If we can somehow succesfully commit islamocide (kill of the ideology), then there would be no need to dirsturb hair on the islamist head (unless that is the part of islamocide's procedure) let alone resort to genocide. But, if we are not willing to consider all the options, including wholesale killing, then we may as well be instrumental in the genocide from the opposite direction, because if we lose, that is one thing that is guaranteed. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-19 21:29 |
| #6 Translation: Zenster advocates genocide on a world-record scale. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-19 19:11 |
| #5 While in and of itself a significant issue, Iran is just the iceberg's tip. This same model applies to the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) and will need to be dealt with in a similar, if not far more drastic, manner. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-19 19:05 |
| #4 Leaving open the option for a Dem prez in 2009. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-19 15:40 |
| #3 My new motto: "NUKE 'EM DEAD!" |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2006-11-19 15:36 |
| #2 I should've noted that it was significant that it was published in the LAT.... looks like the Donks are laying groundwork for rationalizing their support for a W attack on Iran (before they criticize him for the way it was done, of course. It's a quagmire before it actually happens..) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-19 14:47 |
| #1 I agree with Muravchik's historical parallels. The current threat goes beyond anything civilization has faced in the past 4000 years. But I don't believe the political will is there anymore. There are no Aznar and Blair to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with GWB. There is no Rumsfeld, pushed under the defeatist bus. There is no majority in Congress that understands the Islamofascist threat and that consequently would want to destroy its source. There is no will to kill the enemy in large numbers and endorse the moral rightfulness of self-defense -- which includes doing such things as firebombing Dresden and nuking Hiroshima. After 9/11 we've had Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, and Lebanon 2006. It's as if by 1944 instead of landing in France we had watched the UK fight a limited war over V2 launch areas in continental Europe, overwhelming the enemy only to quickly stop fighting and then leave the entire area in the hands of the Germans -- proudly chanting Hitler's name and accumulating more V2s, developing V3s, and announcing that they will soon destroy Great Britain then do the same to the US. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-11-19 14:41 |