Here's my two cents (yeah, it's worth at least that much).
I don't support not voting, and anyone who talks that way is, to put it politely, intellectually challenged.
What I DO support, however, is voting for people who embody conservative principles regardless of party, particularly in the primaries.
That means eschewing `compromises' of the kind that occured in Pennsylvania in `04 and saw people like Arlen Spector returned to the senate.
And it means forcing the major parties to come up with Presidential candidates that embody these values and will show leadership in the War on Jihad...the primary challenge of our time.
Right now,that unfortunately is NOT President Bush, but maybe, just maybe we as an electorate can vote enough decent men into office to give him the spine he so badly needs.
Communicating with your local legislators and the RNC when you get the fundraising letters also has an effect, believe me.So does the White House Comment line.
I think it was Churchill who said that people get the kind of government they deserve.
Let's start insisting on being deserving.Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 22.05.2006 @ 17:28
I agree with you, Rick,but demeanor and oratory will be no substitute for content, which is what the American people are really looking for.
I've already heard that the 10,000 national guard troops tobe deployed on the border will have zero enforcement powers and will serve as `lookouts'.
In other words, they can tell the Border patrol agents `whew, we saw that 10,000 got across last night - you guys really got steamrollered!'
My gut feeling (and I hope I'm wrong) is that this is just a phony lead-in for the president's `guest worker' program. If I'm right, Bush's approval ratings might actually go into the 20's.
What's happened since November `04 has simply amazed me. I've never seen political capital squandered so quickly and to so little effect.Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 15.05.2006 @ 11:35
Ahmadinejad's letter was an invitation to Bush to Dawa..to accept Islam peacefully. In terms of preperation an Islamic caliphate jihad, this is EXACTLY the proper protocol. As for Iran's nukes, read this:J O S H U A P U N D I T: The nuclear project Ahmadinejad didn't brag about
If the mullahs don't already have nukes, purloined from the unaccounted for Ukrainian arsenal, they will have them in three years tops once the hidden site at Neyshabour goes online in 2007.
Bush had better begin to figure out how he's planning on handling this.
And certain people with a small `d' after their names had better wake up to the fact we're in an existential war.Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 12.05.2006 @ 18:58
Congrats, Nuthouse! You've certainly earned it!Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 10.04.2006 @ 14:55
I will concede your point about the suitcase nukes, though there is no knowing wht the Russians mayhave sold Iran.
Odd..I've seen several reputable scenarios of dirty bomb attacks on a major city and all place the death toll at several hundred thousands.
Your Chernobyl comparison is not accurate IMO. (A)It was a nuclear accident, not a deliberate explosion designed with destruction in mind and (B) Chernobyl was not a major city on the lines of say, New York.
Even if you're correct, are you content with the idea of a terrorist attack if it merely involves fewer casualties? I hope not, and don't believe you are.
As for Iran, once again, I must reiterate that I'm not concerned with their paranoia OR their jihad inspired imperialist ambitions.Israel and the US are not their `mortal enemies' on a factaul basis..though perhaps they should be, based on Iran's embrace of terrorism and the amount of American deaths they and their proxies have been directly responsible for.
You are correct about the Arab/Sunni rivalry with Shiite Iran, but it is not as pronounced as I think you suppose when it comes to jihad and killing off the infidel..more like a power struggle and a difference in method, but the goal is the same.
And I believe you are mistaken about Pakistan..if relations were`so bad' why did Pakistan & AQ Khan give them clandestine nuclear weapons technology?
Again, I appreciate that you feel Iran is not an existential threat, and at the PRESENT TIME that's true..the future is someting else again.
Just imagine how many lives might have been saved if the British and French had sent a couple of combat divisions into the Rhineland to stop Hitler and enforced the Versailles Treaty to prevent Germany from rearming.
Instead, we were urged to `understand' Germany's position and its need for `security'!Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 6.04.2006 @ 16:40
correction, the line about the death toll of a radiological `dirty' bomb should have read "several HUNDRED thousand people".
mea culpaComment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 5.04.2006 @ 20:21
I beg to differ with you about suitcase nukes..any coutry capable of completing the `nuclear cycle' is capable of putting one together.
And the radiological bomb you claim is `not nearly as effective'involves the death of several hundred people at a minimum, the evacuation of a major city and an environmental cleanup costing billions and lasting for years.
I think that's rather effective, thank you.
As for your other point, I frankly don't care about Iran's paranoia or their need for `security'.
Please see my earlier postup thread on Iran's goals.
As for `competition' Israel would be happy to be left alone, Pakistan is trying to maintain its political equilibrium and Russia has allied with the mullahs in the hopes of financial gain and a degree of security on the borders (a vain hope, I might add).
Respectfully, Iran is an existential threat to the West,and while I'm certain this is not your intention,I would point the same sort of statements you made in the last paragraph of your post were also made about Hitler and the nazis.
People didn't think they were a threat either...until it was too late.Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 5.04.2006 @ 20:17
Good stuff as always with you!
First off, we have no way of knowing what the Russians (or for that matter, Saddam)had, and what was sold to whom.Unfortunately, we did not insist on destruction (or at least adequate controls)of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal as the price for the billions in aid we gave them.I grant you that al Qaeda may not have nukes AT THIS MOMENT.
A suitcase nuke or a radiological `dirty bomb' is relatively easy to make, provided one has access to radioactive materials. Russia, given its own problems with Islamic terrorism might be at least a little circumspect about giving it to someone like al Qaeda. Iran would have no reason to hold back except as a temporary strategic ploy to enable it to get its nuclear weapons program totally online.
If Iran is able to enrich uranium (and it is doing so as I write this) they have everything they need to put together a radiological dirty bomb for use by others on the Great Satan.
Just a matter of time.
As for the `blockade' aspect this will not work by itself for the same reason sanctions won't..because Iran has land borders, especially with its ally Russia, and because it has soimething people want to buy REAL REAL bad.
Take out the oil fields, whatever miitary/nuclear facilities we can find and THEN isolate them, and things look a lot better.
You should know, BTW that Putin's actions in allying with Iran mirror Stalin's Comintern Pact exactly, IMO..and just like Stalin, Putin will keep supplying the mullahs with arms and raw materials until Iran deems the time right to attack him and topple Russia.Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 5.04.2006 @ 15:59
A few points...
First of all, America has a choice.And it's not necessarily all-out war and occupation.
These are not people who are going to play nice if we stop bothering them. We can either confront Iran now, when they are relatively weak, or later, when they are stronger. It's really that simple.
Israel is only important to the mullahs as a means of uniting the Arab/Muslim world behind Iran's main goal which is to be the leader of that world in a jihad that brings on the return of the Hidden Imam and worldwide Islamic dominance.
As a matter of fact, Israel is less at risk of a nuclear attack right now at the hands of Iran or their terrorist allies than the United States.
Using nukes on Israel, even if successful would only trigger Israel's highly developed second strike capacity on Iran.So there's no great gain there. And there's no pressing need to do so, since Iran has Hezbollah and Hamas in place.
Iran can afford to fight Israel down to the last `Palestinian'.
On the other hand, there's nothing to stop Iran from clandestinely giving a suitcase nuke or two to its friends in al Qaeda for use on the Great Satan..and then claiming non-involvement.
Iran's real goal is not destroying Israel..at least not right now. Their area of expansion is the oil and gas rich areas of the Caucasus and Central Asia, to which end they have a loose alliance with al Qaeda.This also has the side benefit of outflanking the US positions in Afghanistan and places like Uzbeckistan. That's what the
attack last year on Nalchik was all about.J O S H U A P U N D I T: Iran begins processing 2nd batch of uranium; Bush and Putin meet
Worried about the price of gas now? Wait `till Iran owns and/or controls a bigger piece of the energy pie.
I certainly agree with you that Iraq is a problem..but that's largely because President Bush insisted on keeping it together as one country, and more importantly, in the flush of enthusiasm over Arab democracy forgot the lessons learned from America's previous experiences in democratization in Germany and Japan, allowing Iran's proxies to run freely and win in the election.
J O S H U A P U N D I T: Iraq's political crisis continues, or `What we have here is a failure to communicate'
Thus we have a situation where we have been stymied and held hostage in Iraq by the people who invented chess!
The best way to take action, BTW is not necessarily to concentrate on Iran's nukes, which are dispersed and hidden anyway. The key is cash flow and isolation.
Taking out Iran's oil and gas fields and its ports along with as many nuclear sites as we can find will have the following effects:
A)The Russians will no longer build nuke facilities for the Iranians if they aren't paid
B) Russia and China will find Iran much less interesting without all that oil and gas to sell
C)Iran (and Syria, BTW) will receive the same sort of message Qaddafi received from Reagan in the `80's and may decide that bankrolling and harboring Islamic terrorism has more drawbacks than benefits. Plus we will have severely damaged Hezbollah, al Qaeda and Hamas
D) Iran's proxies in Iraq-including Jaafari-will suddenly discover a new feeling of compromise and rationality and allow us to finish what we started there..or we can simply do what should have been done from the first and establish an independent Kurdish ally as a base in the region.
E) Iran can be successfully isolated until its rotten regime crumbles from within.Contrary to the opinions expressed here, i think that a defeat like this would hasten that, rather than drawing the populaton towards the regime.
Spike in gas prices? Maybe. But that is a consequence of the US failing to fully utilize its own energy resources. If rationing is necessary for awhile as a consequence until that situation can be corrected, so be it. The cost would be cheaper than the coat of a dirty bomb set off in Los Angeles or New York.
Sorry for the length of all this..!Comment Posted By Freedom Fighter On 5.04.2006 @ 13:37