Raving Conservative


Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Attack Iran Next

Iran’s leaders are calling for the destruction of Israel and the US. This cry has gone on for thirty years now.

Iran is the same country that celebrates the storming of a US embassy and the violent kidnapping of US citizens every year. This is the same country where a popular carnival game is called “Kill the American”. This is the same country that is openly developing nuclear weapons while claiming it is for peaceful purposes. And it is the same country that has been sending terrorists around the world, and particularly into Iraq to kill westerners.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Iran is more of a threat to us that Iraq ever was. We had more justification to invade Iraq since Saddam had only violated something like 16 UN resolutions that vowed military repercussions if he did not follow them, but Iran was and is the more important target.

Iran openly threatens us, and it openly threatens our allies. It has already covertly attacked us and our allies by sending their terrorists after us. This is an act of war.

I hate war. But what other solution is there when dealing with an openly hostile and violent nation that has actually gotten more opposed to us after decades of peaceful negotiations on our part? I am afraid the War on Terror must inevitably lead to Iran before they start threatening us with fully functional nuclear weapons.

I, like many Americans hoped that Iran’s new president would be more moderate, that age would have tempered his fire. I did not expect this however. I had him pegged as a radical who hates America, Israel, and the rest of western society. Once again I was right. This ability of mine to predict the worst in people gets really depressing sometimes. If things continue on their present course without intervention now we may be sucked into an even greater war as I ran uses nuclear weapons against Israel or possibly invades Iraq shortly after we pull out.

Are the American people willing to make the sacrifices now to prevent greater loss in the future? Can the military reasonably be expected to continue fighting one war after another without a time of peace in between for everyone to recover, soldier and civilian alike? What’s more, can this be done without needing to reinstate the draft as recruitment continues to fall and voluntary military manpower shrinks?

What to do? What to do?


  • "Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon."

    AP report

    Please, before advocating anything, first answer the honest question: How shall we continue to wage war?


    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:29 AM  

  • It's not on;y Iran. It's China, Russia, North Korea and Syria. These are a treat, not Iraq. Iraq was never a treat to the USA, never.

    Someones head should swing for this, we are in a bad situation and guess who put us there.

    By Blogger Ranando, at 7:05 AM  

  • Daniel, you said "I am afraid the War on Terror must inevitably lead to Iran before they start threatening us with fully functional nuclear weapons." And I am afraid you are right!

    Of course we could just close our eyes to the situation; pretend all is well, and let them blow us up! To me that's not a solution, but unfortunately I feel that's exactly what many wish we would do: withdraw from Iraq, leave those poor people to fend for themselves; let the insurgents back in to murder women and children; just run like cowards! That would make so many happy, wouldn't it! They can't get over their hatred of Bush. Not only do they not see the forest for the trees, they don't even see the trees! Blind-sided by their bitter anger at having lost the election and control of this country all they can do is blame, blame, blame while at the same time they offer no solutions whatsoever. Pathetic!

    By Blogger Gayle, at 7:34 AM  

  • Iraq was an oil-motivated fiasco for sure... but Iran? They're proper shits! Bomb em!

    But why is it bad if they have nuclear stuff but good if America has it? The Iranian President is quite obviously an evil mad fool (see his denial of the Holocaust for the ultimate pink elephant moment of supreme denial) who shouldn't be in charge of a kitten, let alone a country, while America has Bush. Ah. Er...

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 10:12 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:56 AM  

  • "Of course we could just close our eyes to the situation..."

    OR we could try to find solutions that actually are workable. That's all I'm saying people. NOT waging a continuous war against unlimited "bad guys" which will eventually bankrupt us AND also NOT turning a blind eye BUT INSTEAD, work on reasonable solutions.

    I've made a decision: I refuse to allow any more wars until you can say how they'll be paid for (in financial and human terms). So let it be written. So let it be done.

    (In other words, it's not a solution if it doesn't work...)

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:58 AM  

  • Jacques Chirac of France (no this is not going to be sarcastic) might actually be the first to make a pre-emptive strike. He said he will respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

    Does anyone else think they have inteligence that we don't?

    By Blogger Cody O'Connor, at 2:55 AM  

  • Very interesting. It does make one wonder why France would be so aggressive toward Iran when they were so supportive of Saddam in Iraq.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 5:49 AM  

  • Iran indeed needs to be addressed. America has toe hold on both sides of Iran, unfortunately the American Army is pre-occupied by military insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. When push comes to shove I suspect we'd get more help from little Kuwait then we would from either of the governments we helped install.

    What the West and China has to realize is that a nuclear Iran will harm their national interests as much as America's or Israel's national interests. This is one time America and the West must put squabbling and oil economics and aside and come to a rare multilateral consensus: whup up on Iran before it is too late.

    By Blogger Theway2k, at 10:28 AM  

  • I am also for "diplomatic solutions".
    If they would only work. All this pressure, all this rhetoric these past few months, and Iran "might" face sanctions.

    Saddam had sanctions against him for years, but that didn't stop him from raping, killing and torturing his people.

    "Workable" solutions would be fine. If they would only, uh, work.

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 11:35 AM  

  • DanP76,
    There is a very simple reason why it is bad if Iran has nuclear weapons when it is good for us to have them... our country isnt controlled by a freaking lunatic! Iran has made it clear that they have an agenda against both the US and our allies (Israel for one). We are supposed to be a world power, its time we started acting like one. Bush is a breath of fresh air if you ask me. In the recent past we have been referred to as a "paper tiger" and worse. Why? Because for 8 years before Bush there was a man in office who was not willing to back up what the US had vowed in the past. When Saddam didnt listen to the US or the UN he had to be dealt with in an appropriate manner and sanctions were never going to get the job done. Now we are looking at a nation who is threatening the US and our allies. We are going to be left with no choice.
    If our nation would support our troops and our nations activities throughout the world as they have in the past the monetary cost of the war we are in now would not be a problem. Historically, war is supprisingly good for an economy, when fighting a war outside of your own national boundaries. It creates jobs and whole new segments of the economy become revitalized. As to the cost in human life... I agree that any life is a great cost. However, the war we are fighting in Iraq has actually cost very few lives. The media here in America likes to point out how many are dead. But look at war in history. Just over 2000 lives is a drop in the bucket compared to even the average number of lives lost in a war, much less some of the most worthy causes in recent history that cost many times that number of lives.
    It seems to me that everyone needs to face a simple reality. War is a terrible thing, but sometimes war is a necessary evil. To protect human rights and our countries well being there will occasionally be a need to fight.
    It is a true tragedy to me when people in this country take so much for granted that they dont think anything is worth fighting and potentially even dying for!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:10 PM  

  • "that they dont think anything is worth fighting and potentially even dying for!"

    Anonymous, you may be new here, I don't know. But I and others who think that our country is heading down a desperately wrong and immoral road. We are indeed okay with fighting for and dying for good causes. What folk like me are NOT okay with is killing for a bad cause.

    And we have killed or contributed to killing tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. You must not forget to count them as you figure in the cost of this war.

    We DO support our troops and if we think the facts support that our troops are being misused by a rogue leader, then the best way to support those troops is to want to bring them home.

    Disagree with our conclusions if you must, but understand we are opposed to Bush policy because we think it immoral and dangerous and because we DO love our country and think there are things worth fighting for.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:13 PM  

  • I have been a steadfast supporter of President Bush's posistion on Iraq, and I applaud the job that our troops have done to help bring some semblence of democracy to Iraq.

    And while I don't think we should pull out of Iraq completely, after hearing an ABC News Story yesterday morning about how Al Qaeda and the Taliban are staging an impresive resurgence in Pakistan, where they are having "open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies" I think that if the U.S. really wants to fight the war against terror - it is time to redirect the majority of the money, troops and resources now used in Iraq back to our efforts in Afghanistan.

    As for the nutcase in Iran, all I can say is we need to keep him in our sights - with our finger on the trigger.

    And now Hamas has won the Palestinian elections. These are truly anxious times for our friends in Israel.

    By Blogger Christian Pundits, at 6:21 PM  

  • Nuke the reactor until it glows. Then nuke it again. Make Chernobyl look like a minor pothole.

    Those bastards need to be taught a lesson in world history, as Japan was taught in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    You wanna play with nukes? Fine! Here's a preview for you.

    They'd do it to us in a heartbeat if they had the chance.


    By Anonymous NukemNow, at 12:04 AM  

  • America in its current incarnation is never going to run out of 'bad guys' to wage war against. A vast amount of countries are corrupt and have oppressive regimes. Is America going to bomb them all into democracy? Who appointed you the moral standard for the world? How very arrogant!

    Anonymous said "our country isnt controlled by a freaking lunatic!" which many people would take with a pinch of salt.
    And when you (Anonymous) say "the war we are fighting in Iraq has actually cost very few lives. The media here in America likes to point out how many are dead. But look at war in history. Just over 2000 lives is a drop in the bucket compared to even the average number of lives lost in a war" surely you have missed at least one zero off that figure?

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 2:41 PM  

  • He was talking about US deaths, as I'm sure you know. Apparently, for him/her, the only deaths that matter.

    [And I'd reckon the actual number is closer to 2 more zeroes off his figure, unfortunately.]

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 3:12 PM  

  • I should have realised that American deaths are worth a hell of a lot more than any other nation's ones. Silly me.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:07 AM  

  • DP76,

    Ameriican deaths mean more to most Americans than other deaths. It is also the type of deaths that the American is obsessed with. And Dan T's assretion about the far greater number of deaths includes enemy combatant and collateral civillian deahs as well.

    Given the previous statement, there is room to argue for each of your numbers, it's all a matter of who you are counting.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:07 AM  

  • Numbers update!

    BBC news gives some info as we hear of the 100th British soldier to be killed out there:

    'In all, 2,242 US troops have died in the conflict. There is no widely accepted figure for the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. Estimates have varied between 10,000 and 100,000.'


    That's a lot of dead folks.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 2:23 PM  

  • In my previous post I was only counting American deaths. However, not because I believe that those are the only lives that matter, but because the US media and main stream America are only concerned with those numbers. Besides that, the death toll of civilians and combatants is not settled. Another interesting point is that the vast majority of civilian deaths is due to the combatants we are fighting not our soldiers. They claim they are protecting their beliefs and their people but they kill indiscriminately... Women, children, themselves, it doesnt matter as long as someone dies and it makes the news and people are dumb enough to feel sympathy for their cause. The lives of the combatants (who are largely terrorists) dont matter to me, as i would argue they shouldnt to you. They dont value their own lives so why should we. I would rather they die at the hands of America then at their own hands taking Americans with them.
    Also, when I refer to supporting our troops I am talking very broadly. Do you think our troops feel supported when they come home and see nothing but negative media about the war and cause they were fighting for, the war many of them were injured for, the war in which some of their closest friends died, and for which many of them gave up everything they knew here in the US to answer their nations calling?
    If you think that amounts to support I believe you and I have completely different ideas of what support means.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:39 AM  

  • The new president of Iran is also a believer that the 12th lost Imam is returning in 2 years. He believes that this will be hastened by world chaos. An apocolypic vision and he runs a country. I am plenty worried about this. He will not back down from destruction and relishes clashes with anyone so he can diabolically destroy the world.
    I also had a hairdresser from Iran, who in 2001, after the world trade center disaster, she told me in confidence that America will pay for its support of Israel. And the Jews cannot be allowed to stay in Israel. I reported her to the FBI at that time and she disappeared.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares