|Questions and Observations|
It would seem that Mr. Ibrahim's entire thesis revolves around the belif that this is going to be hard and it could make things worse in the short term. That is most likely a true statement. The question I pose is, when was the last time the right thing was really easy?
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 25, 2004 01:12 PM
Can't you see? It doesn't matter, because Bush is not going to do a damm thing. Israel is therefore going to take out Iran, and without our permission.
Of course, it would have been better had Bush not gone into Iraq, and in the process upset the balance of power in the Middle East. But now that he has done that, Israel is not going to sit idly by as Iran gets its back up.
And when Israel does go to war with Iran, the rest of the Middle East will descend into chaos, oil will go to $200 a barrel, and the US economy will shut down. Seem fantastic? Not really. Look at what the Israel did back in '81.
Now, you may think: My God, apocalypse in the Middle East? Gosh Bush didn't really think that would happen when he invaded Iraq, did he? Wasn't there supposed to be the flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Or did he? Doesn't the Bible call for an all out war in the Middle East? Doesn't that signal the end of days? Isn't that what the Bush people believe and therefore want to happen? It's a good thing then, right?
Bush: Inspector Closeau meets the Book of Revelations.
Posted by: mkultra at August 25, 2004 03:02 PM
Doesn't the Bible call for an all out war in the Middle East? Doesn't that signal the end of days? Isn't that what the Bush people believe and therefore want to happen? It's a good thing then, right?
Your comments show an appalling ignorance of evangelical Christianity (Bush's kind of Christianity, which I largely share).
We do believe in an "end of days" which will involve war in the Middle East. But that does not make the war a good thing. Both good things and bad things will lead to the return of Christ--Christians try to involve themselves in the good things and prevent the bad things, to the best of our abilities. We do not try to hurry the bad things.
For example, many evangelicals oppose any national ID card. In addition to the usual privacy concerns, we realize that the Bible predicts that the Antichrist will use such an ID card for his own evil ends. People like you may assume that we would support the ID so that the end will come sooner, but it simply is not true. And Bush will not deliberately hurry along a final Mid-East war, despite the prejudices of others.
Hmm, you write about Bush's religion as though you know something about it, even though you don't seem to have that knowledge. You also write about Bush's politics....
Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 25, 2004 03:30 PM
"Of course, it would have been better had Bush not gone into Iraq, and in the process upset the balance of power in the Middle East."
We took out Iraq, a country that couldn't have stood up to Iran anyway because of the crippling sanctions it has been placed under. You could say that we became a major player in the region by conquering Iraq, but that would be a lie. Saddam's containment had kept us a major player in the region since the start of the first Gulf War.
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at August 25, 2004 03:47 PM
If we left Iraq alone and all oter factors remained the same.
The likely result would be another Iran-Iraq war. This time with nukes, chems, biological, etc.
Is that a better scenario?
Posted by: capt joe at August 25, 2004 04:34 PM
This is a hit piece straight from the mouth of the mullahs in Tehran...
1) He's threatening to "make it worse" in Iraq...How so? They're already flooding the borders with every able-bodied jihadi they can throw at it. An open conflict with Iraq would probably lead to tighter border security than we have today. It would definitely lead to a lot more dead Iranians before they ever reached Iraq...Strike One: Iran loses this one...
2) So gas prices go south for a while...so what? Sure it would be a hardship, but aren't the Democrats always complaining that we should be willing to make sacrifices in a time of war? What's that? Hey...where'd they go? Besides even if oil prices went up in the short run, Iran wouldn't be able to benefit from it and the ensuing blockade of their oil exports would completely shut down their economy and their ability to wage effective warfare. Strike Two: Iran loses again...
What they fail to mention is what would happen on the other side of that conflict. As in Iraq, the flow of oil would actually wind up increasing and the profits would no longer be flowing directly into terrorists' hands.
3) With regard to their terrorist network: Like they're not doing everything they can to strike us today? Puuulleeaase. In the event of direct conflict with the United States they would be up to their eyeballs in problems, our embassies would be filled to the teeth with very angry and heavily armed Marines and the civilians would be out of country. Strike Three: Iran loses again...
Excuse me if I refuse to buy into the "you're gonna make the terrorists mad by striking at them" argument...This is the weak-kneed response advocated by John Kerry - and it's the kind of response that leads to appeasement. If you don't understand by now that appeasement and weakness only lead to future problems then you never will.
4) As far as striking Israel, I agree that they probably would. However, the Israeli defenses are so far superior to their neighbors that worrying about Israel is far down on the list of problems we need to worry about. What the mullahs in Tehran should be worried about is Israel turning Tehran into a glass parking lot because that is the most likely end result of aggression against Israel. Double ouch...Iran is down for the count...
In short, Iran has far more to fear from direct confrontation with the U.S. and/or Israel. That's why they support terrorists and don't come streaming across the border of Iraq with uniformed troops. They know this. We know this. This kind of commissioned hit piece is just designed to support the weak-kneed opposition in the U.S. to prevent us from ever taking the decisive action necessary to rid the planet of the scourge of these tyrants.
Don't believe the hype.
Posted by: Jim B at August 25, 2004 10:12 PM
We owe them from payback from events stretching back to Beirut 1983-84; to Pan Am 103; to the
Posted by: NARCISO at August 25, 2004 10:49 PM
We can play with words and ideas all we want, but there is a certain reality here.
Hashemi Rafsanhjani, former president of Iraq publicly called for the development of nuclear weapons and called for their use against Israel (as well as the enemies of Islam).
His rationale was that the use of nuclear weapons would only hurt Islam, but would result in the destruction of Israel.
His remarks,publicly made, were met with near hysterical delight and approval.
Posted by: AH at August 26, 2004 10:35 AM
We ended WWII by nuking Japan, we can quickly end WWIII by turning Iran, Syria and Iraq to glass. This is what it will come down to, because these people see us as merely dust beneath their feet-you can not negotiate with that.
Posted by: m at September 15, 2004 09:09 PM