Time To Get Tough With Iran

National Review: Enough Diplomacy! Address Iran Before Another 9/11 Happens

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Michael Ledeen.

---

Things are never the way we expect they will be, and so it is today, as we stagger and blither our way toward the inevitable decision about Iran. I had imagined that we would finally face up to the necessity of confronting the terror masters of Tehran after some dreadful event that would compel the president to pound the table and say "enough!"

Instead, it has been more like Chinese water torture, or maybe straws piling up on our national back. Never has a country strained so hard to avoid a conflict as the United States concerning Iran. They have waged war against us for 28 years, and we are only now beginning to contemplate the possibility of a response.

That is about the most one can say on behalf of our feckless national-security team, whose leaders are trying to be a little bit pregnant instead of trying to win this thing. Indeed, even in the face of a torrent of information showing Iranian support for the terror war against us, some diplomats and spooks are trying, in their usual too-clever-by-half ways, to relive one of my favorite jokes, the one about the woman accused of stealing her neighbor's pot. She says to the judge "I never took the pot. And it was a very old pot. And it was in better shape when I returned it." Our heroes deny that there is such information, and it isn't really convincing information, and even if it is convincing we shouldn't be mean to the mullahs.

This is the pattern that led us straight to 9/11. For that matter, it got us to Pearl Harbor and to Khobar Towers, and to the Beirut bombings of our embassy and the Marine barracks. It is a pattern of denial and self-deception, driven by an absolute conviction that the truth must not be passed on to people whose view of the world differs from your own. And so our kids get blown up in Iraq, while the Bushes, Rices, Rumsfelds, Cambones, Tenets, Negropontes, and their cohorts deny that we know who's doing it. Deputy Secretary of State Burns, the architect of our failed Middle East mission, goes to Israel to thump his chest and talk about getting tough with Iran, meaning tough talk and a few symbolic gestures — certainly not regime change. Such people talk about "insurgency" as if the shattered remnants of Saddam's ruined state were capable of mounting the terror war we face, when common sense points in the direction of professional intelligence services in Tehran and Damascus.

We are not alone in this suicidal self-deception. Our friends across the water, those tough-minded Englishmen who have recently decided to abolish the Royal Navy for all intents and purposes, have been frenetically seducing us into one diplomat failure after another with regard to Iran for many years now. It is no surprise, then, that the London Times yesterday quoted British officials are denying there is a "smoking gun" to show Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq. I think the unnamed officials who are saying that are either out of the intelligence loop or lying. American intelligence has known for at least a year and a half that the frightful shaped charges that have killed and maimed so many American soldiers were manufactured in Iran — they traced the serial numbers back to the Iranian manufacturer — and it is inconceivable that we would have failed to share that fact with our British allies.

I can well imagine the debates now raging inside the Bush administration over what is apparently a substantial trove of devastating information about Iranian activities in Iraq, and perhaps also Afghanistan. American officials long opposed to any serious challenge to Iran pronounced the information "a bombshell," and some of them now say they have changed their minds about going after the mullahs. So those who still want to take the diplomatic route and continue to appease Tehran must set up a series of obstacles: First try to keep the intelligence bottled up; if that fails, discredit it; and, if all else fails, join the "war is not the answer" crowd, whose credibility rests on the hope that nobody in America has read any history.

This debate has its drama, to be sure. But it is not the dramatic event I had imagined, and its outcome is still in doubt. We are not there yet; if we were, we'd have a national commitment to regime change in Damascus and Tehran. We are in the bowels of the bureaucracy, not on the high slopes of strategic vision and inspirational leadership. But that's our world.

[clemenhagen1]

Here we go again. More drum-beats of war from the same idiots who brought you the blissful sound of democracy in Iraq. Sound oh so familiar, right down to the smoking gun reference. Perhaps you can sprinkle in some more mushroom clouds while you are at it. We need to honestly assess the history of the U.S. in getting us to this point:
1953: Mohammad Mossadegh elected Prime Minister of Iran. United States intervenes, foiling a legitimate democratic movement there. Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iranian oil assets. U.S. & British oil companies scream; CIA responds with coup that places Shah of Iran in power.
1950's - 1978: Shah rules with brutal force. With democracy suppressed, dissent manifests itself in the form of religious uprising. Islamic Fundamentalism in the modern Shiite form born under the direction of Ayatollah Khomeini.
1980's: To stop spread of revolution U.S. funds Saddam Hussein; however, during Iran-Contra scandal we also fund Iran. Why fund both sides? So pro-U.S. oil producers make a killing as Iran and Iraq blow up each others oil industry.
1990 to Today: Saddam invades Kuwait - U.S. troops in the holy land. Osama declares jihad against the infidel. If we'd only allowed democracy to flower in the first case, eh!

[bluestardad]

On CSPAN General Casey Jr. just told Senator Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was not aware of any War Gaming for the New Iraqi Surge Plan! He was unaware if the plan had even been tried on Paper! This General is suppose to be the General in Charge of the Iraq War! General Casey is under consideration for the Chief of Staff of the Army and he is not aware if the Iraq Surge Plan we are debating had ever been War Gamed to determine plausibility, probability of Success, or any type of Course of Action Analysis has been done to determine a possible acceptable outcome! He should be drummed from the service as this is total dereliction of Duty. To Send 21,000 more troops to a war where the plan had never been analyzed for success to his knowledge is Criminal Negligence! Who would send a soldier in to war plan without ever War Gaming the Scenario first?

[clestes-2009]

What the hell is the reasoning here. Military force is better than diplomatic?? What a stupid, stupid idea. Isn't the Iraq disaster enough to convince PEOPLE that the whole idea of invading a country, that has not attacked the USA and is in no danger of doing so, a REALLY BAD IDEA.

This idea ranks right up there at the top of list for irresponsible, not to mention dangerous and outright dumb, ideas.

[gkc99]

I urge the National Review and all the other tighty whitey righty talking heads who are war-promoters to form their own special assault team to lead the attack on Tehran, not unlike Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders. But wait! These chicken hawks can't even ride!

[bluestardad]

Yes I agree the chicken hawks are fast to send someone elses kids to war but are the first cowards to cry foul if anyone suggest they sacrifice and serve!

[bluestardad]

The Chicken hawks an neocons need to be beaten from America and set adrift in the ocean!

[seanmccarry]

Michael Ledeen is a parasite who gets money from NeoCons and the Terrorist organization MEK, and then directs his hate at attacking Iran and killing Iranians so that he would get more funding.

hopefully one of his Terrorist friends in the MEK who direct and shape his opinion with soon take care of Ledeen parasite.

[johnshaft4]

Neocon(artist) Michael Ledeen convicted of lying to Congress over Iran/Contra, is also at the center of the forged Niger yellow cake documents.
Why doesn't Isaraeli Mossad propaganist Ledeen encourage Israel to toss some some men and money into the Iran/Iraq fun and games? War provacoteur Ledeen neglects to mention the gobs of SS-N-26 Super Sunburn anti ship missiles that Iran will unleash in the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz virtually guaranteeing that every tanker/war ship will be sitting on the bottom and also clogging the Strait. Look for $10 @ gal gasoline thanks to traitor Ledeen and his merry band of PNAC/AEI Zionist co conspirators. It is time for us to get tough with traitors...

[observantx]

Another neocon snake with a gift for distortion and spin.

Ledeen held a PhD from the University of Wisconsin, where he specialized in Modern Europe. At Washington University, Ledeen was denied tenure, according to history department faculty interviewed by the Washington Post, because of questions reqarding the "quality of his scholarship" and about whether Ledeen had "used the work of somebody else without proper credit".

[karlimhof]

How in the world can CBS publish anything from such an individual as LEDEEN ????

Does CBS value his neocon thinking? Does CBS still think the neocon movement has something to give us ???

Enough - clean out the stables! Down with the bloody neocon temples of hate and destruction!!!

[karlimhof]

ps : i have a "smoking gun" and I'd be more than pleased to shove it down Ledeens lying throat!

[karlimhof]

ppss

let's get tough with the enemies from within.

[changeit4]

Wow! I started out as a thinking person, a true patriot. With the Ledeen war drums beating in my ears, I have come around to the conservative party line: Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. I mean, it's working so far right?

[karlimhof]

changeit4

yeah, workin' just fine - world is now;

less 3'000+ Americans
less 100'000 Irakis

good scorecard for the neocon's - curse them to hell!

[joshua1968]

Who said that there is a Jewish conspiracy? Get real!

[fascistusa]

GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA.

What else is there to say??

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

[johnshaft4]

Joshua-

What do the names William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Eliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Wurmser, Kagan mean to you and what do they have in common?

You need to swallow the Reality Pill...

[etonhurst]

How in the world can CBS give voice to this fellow, this monster? Sleepwalking in to yet another foolish and unnecessary war with another country that is no threat to us.
Spilling more innocent blood just to steal from those who have considerably less than us is pathological.
In case Ledeen was out to lunch, Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium. How inconvenient for the UNSC who have dutifully lined up behind the neo cons, passed sanctions and in turn have had their palms greased handsomely (such is the price the unpoliticized American public pays). Were we to attack Iran we would have no honour left. This though is of no concern to those of Ledeen's persuasion...

[johnshaft4]

It is a GOOD thing that CBS reprints the drivel from the PNAC/AEI Zionists "Weakly Substandard" and NRO. You can't talk back to the authors in public postings (like you can here) to let them (and others) know how you feel about their twisted lies and psychotic war delusions.

[drdilemma]

What is the most deplorable issue is that we are poised to into a pre-emptive war with yet another country and there are dolts like this who support it. I don't know who makes me the sickest, Bush/ Cheney or the citizens who support them. We don't have the proper equipment for the current 21,500 troop surge (so says the Pentagon, I think they would know best right?) and here we are on the verge of another attack? With Afghanistan and Iraq unfinished? What the ef is the victory goal anyways?
All jokes aside, look out for the military draft comming to a town near you.

[notblue]

Here we have a point of view that differs with all the left wing bloggers here at the CBS comment area. It's very entertaining to listen to the "do nothing at all cost" people. Has any type of negotiation ever worked with an extreme Islamic regime? Haven't the Iranians ignored negotiating with the rest of the world since the revolution of 1979? My only hope is that a resolution can be reached via negotiation but what will it take for America to unite against a threat like Iran? For some on the right the mere hint of the developement of a nuke would be enough to justify an attack and on the opposite end of the spectrum the left would wait until the missile hits U.S. soil killing hundreds of thousands. It's too bad as a nation that we can't find some common ground one of retraint but at the same not one of self destruction via pascifism.

[johnshaft4]

Notblue-
Why don't YOU go over to Iran and Syria and convince them that THEY have nothing to fear from the Israeli Jew nukes pointing at THEM?

[spetiya]

This is the crowd that wanted us to go to war in Iraq, and they got it. Ironically enough, Iraq is exactly why there is no earthly way we could think of going to war with Iran, it would be umpteen times worse.
Most of the violence in Iraq now is sectarian, and while some insurgent groups have some ties to Iran and Syria, the insurgency is mostly not foreign-directed or elements of Saddam's regime, they are regular Iraqis who want the U.S. out of their country.

[kreuz4]

So now Bush, etc., are timid and unwilling to engage an enemy of the US? Hmmm, let's think about why that may be....

For a moment, let's set aside the argument over how real a threat the Iranians are and how much they are involved in Iraq. I personally think they are meddling there, but it's likely only to gain some influence iwth radical Arab Shi'ite elements who they see being the future leaders of Iraq when everything is resolved, as opposed to mounting a "proxy war" with us as it's been deemed. Let's say, though, that this is a proxy war and that they will go nuclear sometime soon (also unlikely, given Ahmednejad's falling support, Khemeni's distrust of him, and a desire to focus domestically, etc).

(cont)...

[kreuz4]

Airstrikes? Symbolic, but probably insufficient to do any good, and might provoke a dangerous response (closing the Straits of Hormuz, etc, forcing our hand to escalate or retreat).

Invasion? Not likely. We'd be forced to hold everything from Saudi Arabia to almost the Indus river, throwing more gasoline on the Islamic world and giving proponents of the American-Zionist conspircay camp such as Al Qa'ida all the more credibility.

The fact is, we're bogged down in Iraq and don't have the forces needed to sustain our operations there (Air Force and Navy personnel are having to fill Army billets there just to keep up with current ops tempo). Bush and the neocons who actually are in postion to influence policy won't make a move more than airstrikes for one simple reason: they can't. Doing so would push our armed forces well past the breaking point, likely require a draft, invite more debate over the reasoning for the Iraq misadventure, and show a foreign policy team with no direction and no answers other than overwhelming force which is much more limited than the right likes to acknolwedge (the perception of invincibility only works when it remains a theoretical; this is why Iraq is so bad, it undermines our deterrent capability).

[clemenhagen1]

Posted by NOTBLUE: Haven't the Iranians ignored negotiating with the rest of the world since the revolution of 1979?

You might want to rethink this line of reason there big blue. If memory serves the Iranians negotiated with Reagan to not release the hostages until after the election. Then the Iranians negotiated again with Reagan. Let me see...oh right. It had something to do with buying weapons for hostages, the profit to go to fund a dandy set of terrorists in Latin America. I believe it was something like Iran-Contra Scandal? They will negotiate, you just have to have a State Department and executive branch that understands the language of diplomacy. Now there lies the rub.

[jimfinster]

Yeah, great idea. Once again attack ANOTHER nation, based on all the great intelligence gathering. Sounds like Iraq all over again, hmmm?

[exusmcsgt]

"Things are never the way we expect they will be, and so it is today, as we stagger and blither our way toward the inevitable decision about Iran."

Only a devout neocon or Zionist could write such drivel.

[gdmoore2]

notblue: Has any negotiation ever worked with any extreme Islamic regime? Good question. The keyword there is "extreme", and the answer is yes, but only when the dialogue had a moderate Islamic intermediary. If you are trying to make the point that negotiation is dangerous and uncertain and fraught with risk and possible deceit, then yes, that is true. If you are trying to say that potential nuclear terrorism adds to that risk, then yes, that is true also.

What will it take for America to unite against a threat like Iran? Well, I think a trusted leader is required. If we are able to drop the automatic polarization for a moment, whatever either of us think of Bush, he has not been able to earn our country's trust. The divisiveness is serious, with fear and loathing on the side that objects to Bush. Maybe we need a bipartisan ticket for the President and Vice President? This is a tough time to be divided, but here we are.

[fascistusa]

GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA. HITLER STYLE. FASCISM.

DO YOU SEE IT??

THIS STORY IS NOT TRUE!! NOT TRUE.

THIS STORY IS A LIE!!

HOW CAN YO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT TO SUPPORT WHEN THE INFORMATION YOU ARE GIVEN IS A LIE???

[rafterman1]

"and on the opposite end of the spectrum the left would wait until the missile hits U.S. soil killing hundreds of thousands."

This policy worked with the Soviets for 50 years. And the Russians had a h3ll of a lot more nukes than Iran could ever hope to produce. Iran won't attack he US directly because they know what would happen in retaliation. And Iran won't give the terrorists a nuke because, well, they know what would happen. It wouldn't be hard to connect the dots and trace a nuke back to Iran.

And don't give me cr@p that the Dems are pacifists as all you righties like to claim. I've heard too many times from you guys on how the Dems want to "surrender". When the Dems thought Saddam had a nuke program as was the story told by Bush, they voted along with Repubs to give Bush the war option. That doesn't sound so pacifist to me. And when we went to war with Afghanistan, again, because Afghanistan supported OBL, who did attck us, Dems supported that too. So Dems will fight just as hard to protect this country. But when it was found out that Iraq had no WMD and it was all just bullsh1t, that's when Dems opposed the war. That's because we support military force when it's appropriate, not as a sledgehammer just to prove how tough we are.

[gary-hamm]

Israeli took it apon its self to strike sadam nuke plant yrs ago..Im shure they are capable of doing the same if they ( Israeli) feel threatened again,It wouldnt supprise me to see them take action before the threat of nukes being pointed or even targeted at them

[emhawks]

As someone said in an earlier post,"Let's get tough with the enemies from within". How very true. The terrorists in the White House have just as much blood on their hands as any Mid-Eastern terrorist.
Bush & Cheney are "setting it up" once again, just as they did with Iraq. They are playing both sides; one side against the other; using lies, deception, manipulation of the MSM, the CIA & covert-ops. to stir-up chaos in an extremely volatile area of the world that already has more than enough chaos & terror. Bush & Cheney want the profit of oil, power & lucrative longterm defense contracts from all this.
I believe Bush & Cheney can be stopped in one of (2) ways; either by impeachment/indictment(the way I would prefer) or end the funding for the Iraq war & the coming war with Iran.
Re-open the 9/11 investigation.

[shingles1]

"They have waged war against us for 28 years"

Um, we overthrew their democratically elected government way back in 1953 - which was kind of an act of war on our part, if you think about it.

But I'm not one to make excuses.

Note how Ledeen is attacking the Bush Administration from the right, for not being agressive enough and for being too cautious. This is an old tactic, tried and true, of pulling the debate to the right. All of the sudden the Bush Administration seems sane or moderate by comparison.

You almost forget that it is this Administration that has sent a second fleet into the gulf; has violated an Iranian diplomatic office (according to our Kurdish allies); issued a supposedly "defensive" shoot to kill order that seems more like the Phoenix program than anything else (since you can already shoot at anything that shoots at you); is blaming Iran for anything that has gone wrong recently without providing any real evidence, etc.

Why, it's almost like our government is already at war but is just waiting for the right justification to come along.

[kreuz4]

"and on the opposite end of the spectrum the left would wait until the missile hits U.S. soil killing hundreds of thousands."

What missile? Iran doesn't have much more than a SCUD, which could barely hit Israel. Their most advanced fighters are F-14s and F-4s, and most of their missile defenses are obsolete US weapons from the era of the Shah. This isn't Germany circa 1936 or the Soviet Union, this is a third world country with links to a bunch of terrrorist group but almost no way of delivering a weapon to the US. They could stir up a lot of trouble in the Middle East, or maybe Europe, but we shouldn't artificially elevate them to near superpower status to justify an attack, 'cause they're just not even close.

[dallison7]

The right wing propaganda machine is in motion. Anyone who thinks Bush isn't planning to attack the second 'axis of evil' nation is foolish. Bush believes he has a directive from God. This crazy S.O.B. will blow the world up if he isn't stopped! Oh, and Kim Jung Il, better get your helmet, your next.

[karlimhof]

it's friday morning so let's discuss opinions;

I really viserally dislike Ledeen, almost as much as I dislike that smug Perly guy. What I specifically find revolting about them is their total exclusion of human beings from their plans. How many could die? They don't ask the question, they state "many must die for "freedom", "liberty" etc.

These guys are real bad and I'm sure Someone, somewhere, it drawing up a list......

[bluestardad]

Media
Quit covering these animals in the Middle East and let them butcher themselves off camera. We have spent 50 years of time blood and money trying to civilize them to western standards and it does not work. Do they own your Job or what? For Example, If your neighbor%u2019s barn burnt down and you helped him with labor and financial aid to rebuild it and he burns it down two and three more times how may times would you rebuild his barn before you stopped and just figured he is not worth the effort anymore because he is not civilized enough to have a barn? America get out of Iraq and quit meddling in the Middle East quit selling them weapons, learn how to make Bio-Fuel or Clean-Coal Fuel and let the Middle East drink the oil, eat the sand, and slaughter each other to their hearts content! They cut the Oil off in the middle Seventies and we still have not gotten independent from Middle East Oil! Who in the American Media Leadership is forcing our media to cover this violence in the Middle East? America has paid for the entire Middle East for the last Fifty Years in Lives, Blood and Tax Money and this investment has brought us the Chaos we have today. It is time to look at Americas own problems and let these animals kill each other! The Middle East has been fighting since the Sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac were born. Americans come home and let the Middle East be Isolated! The entire Middle East is not worth one more American Life or Dollar!

[webdepot]

typical article by the neocons/repukes beating the drums for more war so their investments in the defense industry will continue to provide handsome gains...

What a crock of sh*t from these chicken hawks so willing to spill someone else's blood..

[skyk-2009]

If this wasn't so sad it would be outright funny! We have a Commander in Chief so Incompetent that he is LOSING in a Country not much larger than Ohio. We have our OWN intelligence telling us that the MAIN reason we are LOSING there is that we are in the middle of a CIVIL WAR. We have a Military so abused and misused that it's streached to the breaking point. We have MASSIVE Corruption within the Contractors we are using in Iraq and a MASSIVE debt the size of which we can't even imagine. We have all this and the Fascist want to attack yet another Country? People if we do not do what Germany was forced to do in 1945 and do it soon, we are HISTORY!!

[grumpas]

Notblue is like every other neocon I have come across! He must spend his nights cowering in the dark afraid a missle is going to hit him directly! He doesn't have one visable ounce of common sense! There isn't anyway Iran is going to attack us with nuclear weapons or anything else for that matter...grow up!!!! Quit allowing the "great fear monger" Bush to push your buttons! All I can say is if Iran was such a threat, why didn't our "cheif theif" attack them instead of Iraq??????? Isn't it time for people like you to quit allowing Bush to use you to start another useless war that doesn't need to be started?

[getcentered]

"Time To Get Tough With Iran
National Review: Enough Diplomacy!"

Wrong wrong wrong!! First of all the channels of diplomacy are not even open between the Bush Admin and Iran. Bush doesn't want to talk because he doesn't know how.

The opinion writer doesn't give any suggestions of what to do; it's all just rhetoric and neo-con hogwash.

Do Republicans really think that we should get into a war with Iran? I don't think it's a good idea. After all attacking Iran is going to be a real war with tanks against tanks, planes against planes, and soldiers against soldiers.

Many more US military personnel would die in a war with Iran then of what were seeing in Iraq.

[talkingham]

Time to get tough with the idiots running our own government. Our policy of isolating Iran, Iraq, and Syria has really worked wonders for the region hasn't it?

Meanwhile Reagan trades weapons for hostages and is called as savior. If a Dem had traded weapons for hostages all hello would have broken loose on Fox.

[tibu987]

Let Israel deal with Iran, Syria, Lebanon.
I don't see it as our (U.S.) fight. How many more young Americans must die for Israel?
That we have always supported Israel has always caused a negative in the foreign policy of the U.S.
I believe we can continue a relationship with Israel without having to fight and die for their causes.
Israel with approximately 8 million people, less than the population of New York City is a moral and financial burden for the U.S.

[jimibear]

What a billthering piece of bu11shit this article is. How far up Bush's *** does this guy have his tongue?

Of course Iran's hatred of the US could have nothing to do with the CIA deposing a democratically elected government in 1953 and replacing it with the Shah, a dictator who imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands of his people.

This sort of blatant dissemination of lies and propaganda is how wars get started, and is of course the purpose. Bush is not satisfied with the colossal mess in Iraq; he wants to add to it by invading another country we won't be able to control.

[jimibear]

You can't even say rec-tum on this board?

How about sphincter? Colon? ***?

[jimibear]

A-nus doesn't work either. This is sad. You can't say g-ay, a-nus, r-ectum, or d-arn, but *******, horsefucker, assreaming bottom bandit and cumgargling roadwhore get through fine ...

[jimibear]

Michael Ledeen's mother should have spat him into a tissue like she did with her other tricks.

[clemenhagen1]

Here we go again. More drum-beats of war from the same idiots who brought you the blissful sound of democracy in Iraq. Sound oh so familiar, right down to the smoking gun reference. Perhaps you can sprinkle in some more mushroom clouds while you are at it. We need to honestly assess the history of the U.S. in getting us to this point:
1953: Mohammad Mossadegh elected Prime Minister of Iran. United States intervened, foiling a legitimate democratic movement there. Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iranian oil assets. U.S. & British oil companies screamed; CIA responded with coup that placeed Shah of Iran in power.
1950's - 1978: Shah ruled with brutal force. With democracy suppressed, dissent manifested itself in the form of religious uprising. Islamic Fundamentalism in the modern Shiite form born under the direction of Ayatollah Khomeini.
1980's: To stop spread of revolution U.S. funded Saddam Hussein; however, during Iran-Contra scandal we also funded Iran. Why fund both sides? So pro-U.S. oil producers could make a killing as Iran and Iraq blew up each others oil industry.
1990 to Today: Saddam invaded Kuwait - U.S. troops now occupied the holy land. Osama declared jihad against the infidel. If we'd only allowed democracy to flower in the first case, eh!

[bm6005]

Unfortunately even if a draft were started today it would take at least 9 mos to create more trained (barely)troops. These idiots in the admin are poking the hornets nest today. We would have no choice once we were past initial bombing other than to use nukes. Iran has somewhere around 40 million people, I believe, and they have a tendency to argue amongst themselves but rally around their flag when threatened. They also have very sophisticated missle technology, not scuds as someone mentioned. While it might feel good to turn Iran into a glass parking lot, the ramifications would be civilization ending. No oil, world economy goes to s.h.i.t. Food wars, religious wars, neocons vs liberals, etc. Hmmm have we found the anti-christ?