Comments on: Pew: Majority backs force to disarm Iran of nukes

By: Iran Nuclear Weapons | War with Iran Would Backfire

Iran Nuclear Weapons | War with Iran Would Backfire — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:37:26 +0000

[...] by Christopher Skyi on October 7, 2009 While Barack Obama busies himself with outstretched hands to Iran and canceling data collection on their human-rights abuses, the country he leads has a far different idea of how to deal with the mullahcracy’s drive to get nuclear weapons. A new poll by Pew Research shows that a large majority of Americans approves of using force to end the Iranian nuclear program if Iran won’t end it themselves. That includes a majority of Republicans, independents — and Democrats: (Pew: Majority backs force to disarm Iran of nukes). [...]

By: Jim Anderson

Jim Anderson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:11:14 +0000

The simplest solution with the least amount of bloodshed:
[seriously] Deploy an Electro Magnetic Pulse Bomb over Iran. As I understand it, those devices detonate as the result of a nuclear chain reaction, BUT they explode at such a height that they do not incinerate, nor kill or injure, the population. In fact, as I understand it, virtually no one – except for those with pacemakers [or who may be flying planes at that moment] will be killed.
However, what EMP’s DO accomplish is significant. Every single electrical device in Iran would be utterly destroyed. Every electrict shaver, automobile, light, computer, traffic signal, generator, turbine, etc. etc. would be shorted out of business. The tools needed to repair these facilities would likewise be inoperable. Then the only sanctions that need be imposed is a complete ban on the importation of candles and wax.
The mullahs would have their wish: Their country would be moved into the 7th century in one second.
The oil fields would still exist. The infrastructure would exist. But anything utilizing electricity would be completely out of business.
Then – so what if their nuclear development sites are underground or above ground? They may have their own separate generators, but – in short order – absolutely no one could drive food to the employees. No outside power generators could assist. No phone calls could be made – no cell phones – no refrigerators would work – no dang nothin’ will work.
Then – bingo – the electronics for their surface to air missiles and all their jets are fried as well. Following that – at leisure – the US and/or Israel – can target and bomb the hell out of every facility. They can bring in choppers, land battalions if they wish, and manually destroy them. The army of Iran would be trying – literally – to ‘hoof it’ to defend these remote locations in the mountains. It would be weeks before anyone could deliver a message by any means other than shouting to one’s neighbor.
The government would undoubtedly fall. It would wreak havoc. A tribal society would result.
But, so what? The Mullahs are planning a genocide of Jewish people and of Western Civilization.
In fact – an EMP attack could have other valuable consequences: A second one could wipe out all of Paksitan’s electricity and every device as well. Then – again: Bingo!
They all get their wishes: Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan become the equivalent of America’s tourist sites of Plimoth Plantation, or Jamestown or Sturbridge Village tourist sites. The only difference: Instead of actors portraying the people of the past, the entire populations of these countries would be magically transported to the tribal period of history they most revere.
Imagine the school field trips: “Hey boys and girls! You wannah see how people lived in the stone age and bronze age? Well – we’re going on a field trip by air. Bring your cameras!”
Maybe I’m the looney tune here. But the effects of EMP’s are well known. To say that – at best – a military attack can only delay the mullahs is a crock of bull. We can leave these barbararous states in a situation that will set them back a century. Plus – we can then land all the mobile troops we need to utterly destroy every single bit of nuclear technology – no matter where hidden – before they can get a freakin’ platoon [on foot or donkey back] to combat us. That’s enough of a delay for me. Would we suffer? Yep – oil prices would skyrocket. But – if we have the national will to vote for the right politicians, we have enough oil shale, natural gas, and regular oil available to cook right along for decades. For those find my idea reprehensible, I suggest this: We issue one warning to Iran’s people. You have by a specified date or one or two weeks to overthrow your government and allow us to assist in destroying your nuclear capabilities with our technical teams. If you dont’ – start pricing camels in the newspapers while they can still run the electric printing presses.
Jim Anderson

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:27:39 +0000

There’s still 31% well mannered americans that would sooner file peacefully into gas chambers than make trouble in line.

By: huckelberry

huckelberry — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:13:19 +0000

Nuke iran and call it done..

By: iamse7en

iamse7en — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:30:52 +0000

These pulse 360 ads are really annoying. My adblocker isn’t working.

By: dogsoldier

dogsoldier — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:56:23 +0000

The Calibur on October 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Actually it worked for WWII. Sorta. But FDR gave us the permanent “voluntary” income tax to pay for it.

By: Dr. ZhivBlago

Dr. ZhivBlago — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:14:01 +0000

How much of this majority wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder?

By: Terrye

Terrye — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:13:54 +0000

Sooner or later, something will have to give. I keep hoping that there will be a regime change in Iran that will make a military strike unnecessary.

By: xblade

xblade — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:08:27 +0000

Weren’t Democrats against attacking Iran not too long ago because Bush was lying about their nuclear ambitions? Funny how that works, isn’t it?

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:57:20 +0000

Obama… Clueless in D.C.

The first CIC who has to be dragged to the front of the fight and forced to lead.

Pathetic.

By: Blacksmith8

Blacksmith8 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:44:01 +0000

The cipher in the oval office is not going to do a thing, not one thing to stop Ah-need-ah-dinner-jacket, the notorious kidnapper, torturer, and negotiater from assembling, or using nuclear weapons. Accept it. He won’t.

OTOH Akbar Obooboo, the Kenyan son, will not do a thing to stop Israel from protecting themselves with or without provocation. He just doesn’t have it in him.

There’ll be the strongest of messages maybe even tense discussions at the insecurity council, but no actual action.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER believe what Barry Dunham says.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS believe what Barry Soetoro does.

FREEDOM!

By: Cricket624

Cricket624 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:39:23 +0000

JackOkie:

I suppose you could cut off Iranian oil shipments at sea via Hormuz or, given the power and reach of the US Navy, any location, really. But that’s a ticklish situation that has to be managed over time and your opponent gets to devise ways around it or develop measures to test and weaken your will. You seldom see such blockades working out in history without the attendance of considerable violence.

By contrast, Iran is at war with us today, we just tend to ignore it. Let’s show them some respect and answer their call. We shouldn’t patronize them – what are we, racists?

And, the beauty of this approach is that we don’t invade, occupy or nation-build. Shoot it up. Move on.

Oil is an easy target that they cannot hide. They depend on it. Terrorists depend on it. Arab nations use oil as a shield against western justice.

What do you think would happen in the other nations if we smashed Iran’s shield?

By: Cricket624

Cricket624 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:28:05 +0000

And what’s the plan to deal with the Russians that help them refine their oil, provide them natural gas, provide them information to further their nuclear weapons? Russia will not sit idly by when Israel hits Iran.

mimi1220 on October 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, they will sit idly by. And, I’m not talking about Isreal – it’s the US that should hit Iran.

The Russians still cannot contend with us militarily. And besides, they have their own interests. They are oil producers and, as soon as Iran’s production goes up in flames, the price of oil will rise as well until new production comes on line. Russia profits.

Now, we will have to suck up much higher fuel costs for a spell. This is war, after all.

By: Blacksmith8

Blacksmith8 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:22:26 +0000

When they start threatening my way of life-I got a problem.
It will never end, you all must know that.

Badger40 on October 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM

It’s the verse of the sword. You know as well as I, it only ends one way.

FREEDOM!

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:19:16 +0000

Not just opening up. Whole new industries, supplies, labor, were invented and with all of it, supply barely caught up to demand.

Blacksmith8 on October 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM

I would add that the production required by the war effort was a coherent policy, unlike general government expenditures, which tend to be incoherent and wind up not building anything sustainable. That’s the point you made but I just wanted to throw that wording in. It’s interesting that just about the only governemtn spending that ever delivers anything of lasting value to society is defense spending, because it has a larger purpose driving it, unlike other government spending, which tends to be just for the moment.

By: Blacksmith8

Blacksmith8 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:15:13 +0000

Are you talking about how World War II pulled the country out of the Great Depression by jumpstarting the manufacturing sector and opening up positions for jobs? Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic. I don’t think that’s on most of the minds of people who would support military action.

amerpundit on October 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Not just opening up. Whole new industries, supplies, labor, were invented and with all of it, supply barely caught up to demand.

By: JackOkie

JackOkie — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:09:51 +0000

Cricket624:

It might be enough if WE just blockade the Strait of Hormuz. IIRC Iran only produces 25% of their gasoline requirement internally. A year or so ago Saudi Arabia announced, seemingly out of the blue, that they could pump an extra 1 – 1.5 million barrels a day if need be. This happened during a period of heightened attention to Iran’s nuclear program. I later decided they were sending a public signal that they would step up to help replace Iran’s contribution to the world’s oil supply if needed.

mimi1220:

If the U.S. moves against Iran, Israel won’t have to. If there were any way Russia could supply any significant part of Iran’s gasoline requirement, they would be doing it now.

Russia doesn’t like it when we take action to protect our own interests. Do you want to live your life according to what Russia does and doesn’t like? I don’t. Do you want a Middle East with nukes under every sand dune? That’s what you’ll have if Iran is not disuaded from their bomb, because the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia will nuke up in a hurry. Iraq would have been the death of the non-proliferation regime if we hadn’t acted. Now Iran is the threat. If you care about nuclear proliferation, how do you expect to stop it without enforcement? Oh, just send a strongly worded letter? That’s the ticket!

By: jimmy2shoes

jimmy2shoes — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:06:50 +0000

We need an Alpha male, stat! Ironically, the only ones around seem to be female. What gives?

By: Archimedes

Archimedes — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:55:00 +0000

I wonder what the polls would say if the question was “is it worth killing x Iranians, suffering y counterattacks around the world and throughout the region, paying z for a gallon of gas” (fill in the variables) to delay the Iranian program?

CK MacLeod on October 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Don’t forget to round out the poll…..

A, How mwny Americans, Europeans, Arabs, etc, would you be willing avoid from incineratition by atomic terror attack?

B, How much would kike to appease Iranian domination of the Gulf States and control of the Persian Gulf giving the Mullahs carte blanche to dictate what you Pay at the pump?

C, How many Iranian men, women, and children are you willing to tolerate being subjugated an autocratic theocracy willing & capable of the most despicable acts against their people in order that they can spread their barbaric subugation to the rest of the world?

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:54:02 +0000

TexasDude on October 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM

BTW, I hope I didn’t come across as attacking you, or anything, Tex. I just wanted to make a point about the “jihad as internal struggle” idea we hear these days, and used your comment as the jumping off point. I never heard anyone address that “internal jihad” idea (in public) and really wanted to get the argument out there.

By: mimi1220

mimi1220 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:45:00 +0000

Cricket624 on October 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM

And what’s the plan to deal with the Russians that help them refine their oil, provide them natural gas, provide them information to further their nuclear weapons? Russia will not sit idly by when Israel hits Iran.

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:44:26 +0000

Take Jihad as an example.

Some like to believe it is just an internal struggle or an expression of a struggle with faith, not an external, violent war against all non-believers.

TexasDude on October 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Not really. That’s like saying that some Jews or Christians believe that the Messiah is an internal state of peace that they strive for. Jihad is war. Nothing in islam is internal or individual. Islam has no real use for the concept of the individual. That’s why muslims are forced to kiss the ground five times a day, to pound into their brains how worthless and dispensable they are. Think about it. Kissing the friggin’ ground, five times a day, every single day. And it’s only five because Mohammed bargained allah down from something like 35 times a day. No joke. The name, “islam” means “submission” for a reason. Individualists do not submit. They choose.

You have been taken with Western excuses for islam and lies about jihad. There is nothing individualistic in islam, and the idea that jihad is individualistic is just far outside of the reasonable. Jihad is the violent sacrifice of the individual to the group. Nothing else.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but you need to be very careful not to try and analyze islam with a Western perspective. Islam is as non-Western as anything. We are individualists. Islam is all about tribalism. We use guilt – a private, individual mechanism that is totally dependent on the individual. They use shame – a public, collective mechanism that the individual has little control over. Islam is a mindset that most Westerners cannot really comprehend – except for our collectivists leftists, who are into tribalism and hate our individualistic characteristics. That’s why lefties have an affinity to islam and jihadis.

By: heshtesh

heshtesh — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:39:04 +0000

You think if Obama was as dumb as lowly me he might realize the circumstances before all of us?

By: TexasDude

TexasDude — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:21:46 +0000

It’s not all Muslims, but radical ones who take the Koran at its word. These Muslims do not attempt to put extra meaning in the fairly clear language of the Koran and use that as their base of belief and worldview.

But even with that, there are more ambiguous ideas in the Koran that can mean one thing or another.

Take Jihad as an example.

Some like to believe it is just an internal struggle or an expression of a struggle with faith, not an external, violent war against all non-believers.

The problem, though, is when it comes to other ideas in the Koran such as dhimmi (what a non-believer is and who must not only have be in a lower position than a Muslim, but must pay tribute of some kind to the Muslim rule in power).

Such things give credence to the more aggressive, violent, external interpretation of Jihad and, thusly, make the fundamentalists appear to be the more correct interpretors of the religion.

There is a reason why Christians have a hard time actually living let alone thriving under Islamic ruled countries.

By: progressoverpeace

progressoverpeace — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:13:35 +0000

While Barack Obama busies himself with outstretched hands to Iran and canceling data collection on their human-rights abuses, the country he leads has a far different idea of how to deal with the mullahcracy’s drive to get nuclear weapons.

No kidding. The Precedent is the enemy. Period. Everyone knows this. That Traitor Tour where he ran around bad-mouthing our nation was just a start for the moron in the White House. The Precedent is going to set another precedent – being the first Commander-in-Chief to be found guilty of treason (unless rational states just decide that the federal government has been allowed too far out of control to ever rein in, again, and secede to carry on the spirit of the US (as this US is heading down the socialist/collectivist hellhole).

The Traiotr-in-Chief can only give so much aid and comfort to the enemy before he is finally called on it, or the US dissolves.