Recall the pretext leading to the Iraq invasion was the unwillingness for our European “allies” to enforce “serious consequences” against the malignant Saddam Regime.

Moreover, the Israeli bombing in Syria must be taken into account.

What other recourse?

Lazarus on September 12, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Point taken.

And Germany makes the surprise and indelicate public announcement that they will oppose such efforts. They can’t have it both ways. There may — may — be a small chance that non-military methods can check the Iranian mullahs’ nuclear ambitions…….

There is no such thing as a moral war and there is no rational reason to try to fight one.

Oh, yes there is! This philosophical corruption is precisely why we have cowardly, inept leaders, elected by unknowing, apathetic citizens brainwashed by decades of nihilism and skepticism. It is moral to defend the Good, and more specifically, a way of life based on freedom and reason and respect for individual rights. It is immoral to refrain one iota from defending that way of life.

America, while becoming increasingly poisoned, is still the greatest country on earth. It offers man the best, most moral way to live, and that way should be defended 100%. Our enemies strike at us from helholes of their own making, and in spite of our immoral, altruistic efforts to benefit them.

Islamist regimes have made plain what they are out for: the destruction of man as he should live, replaced by a mystical zombie slave. And Muslim civilians support that goal by their fanaticism and tolerance of the slave-drivers. They are not innocent. They have had every chance to reject their jihadist leaders, but they only grow more bloodthirsty.

It is profoundly moral to destroy the Islamist threat against this country, and to unleash so much devastation, that the return of such a threat is unimaginable to anyone. It is rational to do so, because man cannot live as a slave, and any attempt to enslave man must be stopped. Maybe you meant that it is immoral and irrational to start a war, to initiate force against another nation. That is, indeed, immoral, but that is what every jihadist country has already done to us. It is essential, and moral, that we retaliate with overwhelming force.

Your last paragraph suggested that you understand that the enemy must be wiped out, without consideration for civilian deaths. I assert that that is moral and rational.

If that is Germany’s position, I’ll be blunt and state that’s the position of a moral coward -hiding behind the skirts of another country when faced with a challenge.

taznar on September 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM

The Germans are a very unique case and all thoughts on their actions or lack thereof must take Germany’s recent historical role in the world into consideration. Germany was at the epicenter of (in other words they started) two world wars in the last century, this fact is not even remotely lost on the German people.

Their reluctance to even remotely be in a position that might be perceived as agent provocateur is quite reasonable and understandable, hence their private approval and public disapproval.

JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM

I offer no better proof of your assertion than this: Marcos the Dickeater Mulitsas was stationed in Germany.

taznar on September 12, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Azackly.

(Germany)… gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In other words, Germany knows something needs to be done, but they’re not willing to make the sacrifice or get their hands dirty in order to get the job done. Like too many of our “allies” they see the role of making the sacrifices and getting dirty as the responsibility of the US.

If that is Germany’s position, I’ll be blunt and state that’s the position of a moral coward -hiding behind the skirts of another country when faced with a challenge.

I trust we’re in Rammstein for our purposes,

There’s a special problem with permanent US bases abroad. In Feb.’03, the WSJ had a piece entitled “Homesick for Schnitzel.” It described the attitudes of some US servicemen who had been stationed in Germany for a long time– long enough to marry German citizens and have “German” kids. I can’t find the article now, but the point was that there were murmurs (or louder) among some there that the US should not be going to war with Iraq.

So a reason against permanently stationing American soldiers in foreign countries is that they may assimilate into the local culture and become sympathetic to the political views of the host country. For that reason, we might wish to move Rammstein.

I don’t know if the Brits can handle the Iranians.

I have no doubt their military can handle the Iranians. What I question is wether their politicians will let them.

I don’t know if the Brits can handle the Iranians. I used to have such great respect for them, but now that respect is quite shaken.

Tony737 on September 12, 2007 at 7:49 AM

The issue won’t be the Brit soldiers; they have proved with great certainty their big brass balls. It’s their leadership we need to worry about. But if they’re on the ground, we have a great and formidable ally.

F*ck the Germans; I trust we’re in Rammstein for our purposes, only. Bradky’s comment on Putin and Bush is spot on; I pray that history regards that comment as irrelevant foolishness, but it doesn’t look that way today.

Germany will never opt for force unless they are attacked.The country is Green, nannied, and unionized. It is Munchkinland. They might dance if the witch is dead but they aren’t going to help put her down.

Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Arab countries, Russia, and the EU are all waiting for US to take care of Iran. China, on the other hand, might have a thing or two to say about that.

dhimwit on September 12, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Should have added an “on the other hand.”

Russia is an Oriental power, more than an Occidental one, in both geopgraphic and cultural terms. Hence, the resort to authoritarianism. We may be intrinsically culturally incompatible. Certainly it has played out like that.

Kralizec on September 12, 2007 at 9:47 AM

HaHa. have heard that suggested as a solution to the illegal problem. Annex Mexico, everyone becomes a citizen, we get the resources–they get good governance and US citizenship.

Hell, could be a model for the world.

Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 8:33 AM

Too much traffic for it to load. Looks like a busy news morning. I just woke up and find out about another big quake in Indonesia, Putin and Russia, and this with Iran. Crazy world we live in, fixin’ ta get crazier.

Thanx for this link, see-dubya. (linked above too as new report by Thomas Joscelyn) I read it yesterday and it is a fascinating history of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and Iran. The Administration would do well to educate the American people and the world on what Iran has been up too. For example, their probable involvement in 9-11 is reason enough to bomb them back to the 19th Century.

Iran has earned sanctions for pursuing nuclear weapons to be sure. However, we have been letting them get away with killing Americans since Beirut, at least. Now they are killing us in Iraq. Something needs to be done. What will Russia and China do in response? The scenarios get pretty crazy, but can we just let Iran continue to get away with murder? We sure can’t let them have a nuke.

Epicenter by Joel Rosenburg in on my coffee table. Time to read it. More importantly, time to pray.

Time to withdraw our troops ASAP!!! From Germany.

Texas Nick 77 on September 12, 2007 at 7:35 AM

As long as we’re just describing our pipe dreams, I’ll say I’d prefer the Americans tell the Europeans their territories are now American Territories, and give them the terms under which they can eventually be made States.

amerpundit on September 12, 2007 at 9:37 AM

IMO, in spite of France’s not insubstantial exports to Iran, France’s game is to divorce Syria from Iran, so that Syria will butt-out of Lebanon, which is where French influence in the Mid-East is exercised. Thus France’s hard-line against Iran. Also, remember, France is an “Arabic” power, not a Persian one.

dhimwit on September 12, 2007 at 9:31 AM

good point. remember, the Russians were fighting on the same side as us in WWl and WWll, although their reasons may have been different. If their ideology doesn’t shift too far left or right again, a BIG IF, maybe we should talk.

Also, they have a 3rd enemy in common- IRAN. And I am assuming they know it, and are making sure they are paid before their reactor there is destroyed. You gotta admit, their actions don’t add up, unless they are truly paranoid about NATO expansion into E. Europe.

Look at the matter practically, Russia and the US are two vulnerable superpowers. They have enemies in common, China and Islam. Each, if it would stop and think, needs the other. We need Russia’s energy fields. They need a powerful ally to help them hang on to them. Together, the US/Russia would be unbeatable.

Now, what form of government the Russians give themselves is irrevelant. Give me a wise autocrat in the Kremlin who gets the advantages of partnering with the US. And give me a US president smart enough to do the same with them.

Besides, as Grozny found out, the Russians aren’t squeamish about dealing with Islam terror regimes. We could learn from the Russians.

As for Iran. I don’t think we have enough bombs or guts to do the job right.