Don't forget the very likely collusion of the Kerry campaign with lobbyists sympathetic to the Iranian Government and their radical mulllah agenda to tip the scales of the entire Middle East by possessing nukes.

Hey, slow down there. Proper bears support Bush.

We do have a union, actually, but it's pro-Bush all the way...

-NZB

I reject the charge of conscious Kerry campaign collusion with radical elements, in the same way that I reject Michael Moore's assertion that Bush is kind to the Saudis because they like to barbecue.

Russia has completed the nuclear reactors for Iran. They are now "negotiating" the return of spent fuel rods. Syria is "negotiating" with Iran to send Saddam's "protected" nuclear bomb scientists to Iran to complete the weapons program. President Bush is on this like stink on you know what. Kerry would still be giving them the fuel option; one they've already refused. Without being "hyperbolic", that is an excellent analysis.

Yeah, but Bill. Bush lied. Cheney worked for Halliburton AND got a flu shot.

To a lot of us, the choice is obvious. To others it's supreme court worries, tax breaks for the rich, and Bush is stupid (have you heard Chimpy speak?!?!?). Saddam murders his own people? Fine. US troops obliterates insurgents? We're a children killing occupying force... there for oil. Liberating millions means nothing since Halliburton got a no-bid contract.

Even after reading those thought-filled, reasonable reasons not-Bush voters listed yesterday, none of it matters if governments with nothing to lose start lobbing nukes in Europe or Asia or, worse yet, get one to the U.S.

-H

H -

Yup.

And our collective weakness is a failure of imagination.

Ok, so here's my problem with all of this, though I don't know of any solution. The strategy seems to me to be: As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the hope is that this will put pressure upon Iran, among others, to move in that direction as well as be more cooperative with the US in regards to weapons programs. Ok, so that is all fine and good if it works. If it doesn't work (regardless of the state of Iraq), and Iran continues with nuclear weapons programs, we destroy their facilities with missile strikes, yes? The problem with that solution is that the Iranians will unite in support of the mullahs who they have moved increasingly away from in recent years (thanks to a very well educated public combined with new communication technologies, etc.), and against us. So it seems to me the two possible solutions here are we have a more democratic and cooperative Iran, or we have one once again hellbent on destroying us (but hopefully without nukes). Now I know we have to do something about Iran, but I feel this sort of zero-sum game we might play with them could destroy what is potentially the best candidate for a true democracy in the region (I know it's not the ME, but close enough). The Iranians are well educated, they have a growing middle-class, and many actively seek reform. I certainly think it is wrong to negotiate with that theocracy, but I would love for there to be a solution that doesn't involve bombing that country because we can't install a democracy in Iran after we bomb them. Like I said I don't know a solution to this and I know more about Iran than our strategy to deal with them, so please correct me where I'm wrong.

- This campaign will be long noted as having provided the left its best opportunity to push its isolationist ideas into the mainstream of American politics since the Vietnam war...

- But for the fact that the election comes down to the "undecideds" and specific demographic blocks of last minute voters they might have even pulled it off...

- The Democrats insurmountable problem lies in a sub-poll response that says it all: 69% of all registered voters polled say that "[changing] presidents in a time of strife and war is very worrysome...."...

- If the last minute blocks are really the deciding force in this election cycle it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce which way the majority of them will vote in the end...

- The idea of moving to a "siege" mentality, bolstering homeland defenses to some rediculously hard to maintain level, and one that a determined enemy would most likely find a way to penetrate, while at the same time letting the Islamists regroup and rebuild with a military pullback is simply unworkable. The number of times this strategy has failed in history fills library's....

- Having a job isn't much comfort if you have to dodge rosdside bombs to and from work, or wear a kevlar jacket on jaunts to the local mall....

so please correct me where I'm wrong.

Here:

The problem with that solution is that the Iranians will unite in support of the mullahs

What makes you think that the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities will drive the masses of Levi-wearing, text messaging Iranian young people into the arms of the religious fundamentalism that they despise?

Nationalistic pride, coupled with a clampdown on media and other restrictions. Granted many in the middle class would not actively support the regime, but they would be marginalized by those who would and the lower classes who would and already do. The Iranians will not lightly accept being bombed. How do you think they would react?

I think backlash would be short term. More importantly, the removal of Iranian nuclear capability is vastly more important than a shift in public opinion, even a fundamental one.

This is the problem with applying micro, humanistic calculations to macro issues of survival - letting them go nuclear should take precendent over just about anything.

You may also underestimate that the fact that there is a sizeable contingent of Iranians that like America and would actually love any action that weakens the regime.

Letting them go nuclear immeasurably strengthens their domestic grip.

Only one way to find out, then. Start bombing.

I'll hazard that such an action might actually galvanize opposition to the Mullahs.

Like I said, I don't know another solution, and I certainly don't like Kerry's idea of dealing with such that regime. If we bombed their nuclear facilities we would have to be very careful about it I think.

I'd agree with Eric. The Mullah's positions are essentially jeopardizing the long-term safety of Iranian citizens.

-H

- Mantis .... with Afghan and Iraq neutralized the only support Iran has left is Syria. What could they do, other than scream a lot. Besides Israel will definately act as the striking force surrogate in any nuclear facility bombing campaign, they've already stated that as an absolute given if it comes to that....

- The Mullahs are frantic to obtain nuclear because they know their support is weakening by the day and they see that as their only way to maintain power.....

Best pro-Bush argument I've seen. But I have reservations.

I'm not sure a nudge will do it. Maybe.

Maybe our intelligence will be perfect this time around and we'll know precisely where to strike and when. It's a nuclear reactor, after all. We know where it is. And there is evidence that significant portions of the Iranian population would rise against the Mullahs, given the chance.

But what if we can't be sure one strike - or even a lengthy bombing campaign - is enough? What if we need more than a nudge to knock off the Mullahs? What if the best case scenario does not come to pass? It is in managing these risks that the problems arise. We would have a very tough go of it invading Iran with our current force structure and global security committments, sympathetic populace or not.

I'm very angry with the DC leadership of both parties because of this. We can see this scenario coming, but we're not ramping up the force we may need to execute an invasion and occupation of Iran, should that be necessary. It may not be, but responsible leadership prepares for the worst case scenario, as well as the best. We can throw loads of money down the drain on unnecessary domestic spending, but we can't expand our military to the size it needs to be to deal with the multitude of soon-to-be-imminent threats around the world? This is a collossal bipartisan failure that may ultimately dwarf 9/11.

Hell, this is really all just useless carping on my part. I can't offer any useful alternative other than a crash-spending campaign to expand our military massively in the next 18 months. Yeah, that's going to happen. We can't undo the mistakes that got us here. Our options going forward are bad. Sorry for being so doom-and-gloom on your very nice blog. Guess I'm just pessimistic and there's nothing that's going to happen in this election that is going to cheer me up.

Isarael WILL do the dirty work.

The US presence in Iraq puts us in a MUCH better position to act against Iran, from land and air. The logistics chain that has been established and debugged is worth the price of admission alone.

Then there are the airbases. We no longer need to get permission form the Saudis to launch from their “secret” bases. (And hey, that gets me thinking, wasn’t one of Osama’s biggest beefs with the US the fact that we had troops on his holy soil? Well, guess what, as a result of the Iraq war, US troops aren’t on Saudi soil anymore. Hmm…)

And don’t forget, we also have Iran penned in on the other side now, with Afghanistan. And again, the logistics routes we have there are extremely valuable. We now can basically bring to Iran anything we want, from any direction we want, any time we want. No need to do any political ass kissing to open up the routes.

And if Israel is left to do the dirty work, now all they have to do is clear Jordanian airspace, and they’ve got smooth sailing till the Iran border. Of course, the political ramifications of the US allowing such a flyover would certainly be messy. But I'll take political fall out over nuclear fall out any day.

Owen -

Assuming even relatively accurate info (likely gleaned from Russians sources), having Israelis or US missiles demolish the facilities shouldn't be too difficult before the the operation is running and fuel is decentralized.

That being said:

- There are never guarantees on intelligence

- I'm not even certain by any means that Bush would move early enough

But I do know this:

- Kerry won't. Kiss it goodbye.

- If Kerry is elected, the mullahs will perceive it as taking a loaded gun off the table. US negotiating power will weaken.

Re-electing Bush strengthens US intimidation quite a bit. They know how Western Democracy works.

A part of me says we should sit back and watch the EU try to negotiate with Iran. As the negotions fail, and the EU just ends up givng Iran more nuclear capabilites, Iran sends a small missile to Paris or Berlin. Oops. Once they almost have capabilities to send a missile to US soil, We nuke em back to Allah.
Does this make me bad?

Steve O, your post got me thinking of yet another reason for us to be in Iraq longer term: Missile defense.

The space and air based systems still seem to be pie in the sky, but a lot of work and testing have gone into ground based systems recently.

Are they ready for prime time? Maybe, maybe not. But I do know this: it’s a whole lot easier to take out a missile that’s on its way up, versus one that’s on its way down. Helps keeps the nasty stuff out of our neighborhood too.

Oil, shmoil. Maybe the US presence in Iraq will end up being like Germany and Japan. I could handle that.

I have a question. To what extent do we have anti-ballistic missile capability, currently installed and operational, that could potentially knock out an Iranian first-strike? Does anybody know? I know that such technology has been successfully tested fairly recently, but I think I recall reading that we were still a couple of years away from deployment. It was being considered especially with North Korea in mind.

So where are we with this? Anybody know? The Patriot system wouldn't work against these missiles, would it?

Bush did such a good job with his Iraq invasion, I'm sure adding Iran to his list would be a snap. Those nightly pictures of dead Iraqi women and children have really enhanced our standing in the Arab world. It makes me feel so safe! Abu Ghraib has been a big PR boost for the US around the world. It makes me proud to be an American! Who cares if there weren't really any weapons. I'm GLAD Bush ignored the UN inspectors who said Saddam was cooperating, and they hadn't found any evidence of weapons, and they wanted more time to keeping looking. We really kicked some Iraqi butt! Mission accomplished, George! Meanwhile Iran and North Korea actually DO have active weapons programs, and they get scarier all the time, while Bush is obsessed with Iraq. Yeah, I can see why you want to trust this guy for another four years.

Will -

I won't mince words - you're naive and ignorant.

Thank you for reminding me of the challenges to intelligent discussion on foreign policy.

Hey look over there - it's Michael Moore!

Fetch!

Wow. What a comeback.

Hey, I loved your reasoning above: it's a good thing we invaded Iraq because NOW we can use Iraq as a staging area for our attack on Iran.

When Bush hands you a lemon: make lemonade!

What really comes through in Bush's handling of Iraq is his compassion for the Iraqi people. For example, while Baghdad was being looted, Bush's generals focused on protecting the oil facilities and ignored the hospitals. A few months later, Bush managed to save a few bucks by firing the entire Iraqi army. Hey, war is supposed to help OUR economy, not their economy. Haliburton executives have to feed their kids, too, you know. Those Iraqis should go get a real job! So I wonder why no westerner can set foot outside the green zone without a convoy of armored Humvees.

Clearly, Bush doesn't do nuance, and neither do you.

Would this country and the rest of the world be facing this looming threat now if the Carter Administration had dealt differently with Iran in 1979?

Eh, probably. The Iranian Revolution was the product of a few things, including backlash against the corruption of the Shah and anger at Western influence in their country.

To be honest, the policies of tolerating and supporting corrupt regimes for economic interests - the exact thing that critics of the neocons want to return to.

Will -

I do plenty of nuance, but I refuse to argue specifics with punks that clearly sneer while they type. You misrepresent and misunderstand the arguments that I do present, and bring up points not relevant to the post at hand, because they are the only foreign policy talking points you've learned from whatever publication or leftie blogger serves as your primary information source.

Learn how to communicate properly, and perhaps you'll learn how to make people want to listen to what you have to say.

Goodbye.

Oh my... I fear this campaign is reaching such a level of absurdity that even the Animal Kingdom has finally decided to put its two cents in.

Bluntly, I am not making any travel plans to Iran in 2005 if George W. is re-elected. Many Iranians would welcome the release from the mullahs.

This link gives some details of the Iranian missile program:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml

My take: Expect them to be able to hit the US with MIRVs in the not too-distant future, thanks to our friends China and Russia.

A USAF strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is not at good idea UNLESS we are prepared to go all the way and take out the mullahs like we took out Saddam. One of the lessons of Gulf I is to finish off the job the first time, or you have to come back and do it all again. Besides, there are just too many US targets within SCUD and FROG range of Iran. Personally, I'd have no problems with invading Iran, although one wonders where we'd get the troops. I have always seen capturing Iraq as an opening gambit in taking on the major-league state sponsors of terrorism: Iran and Syria.

If I were the President (thankfully, I'm not) I would (1) allow the Israelis to do the dirty work, and (2) start or step up a MAJOR covert campaign to overthrow the Mullahs. IMO we just don't have the troops to invade at this point in time. Don't expect anything to happen until November 3, though.

A subsequent note to the Syrians to play nice or join their islamofacist brothers-in-arms in paradise a-la Lybia should do the trick to take them out of the picture.

"In an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on America, John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence operations. By $6 billion. Cuts so deep, they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

Bill, I believe this commercial is intentionally deceitful. While the statement above is factually true, I believe the writers had the intention of fooling people into thinking that the liberals voted to slash intelligence operations post 9-11. However, the statement above is a reference to the first WTC attack in 1993.

Why so much deceit from both parties? I sincerely hope that the next election brings more honesty and less spin.

7777 Offering online casino with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for casino online this is a good site to visit.

2868 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack