Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > July > 07 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBiting off more than we can chew…
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear installations would create trouble that we aren’t equipped to handle easily, not with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drove that point home in a press conference last week at the Pentagon.
“I’ve been pretty clear before that from the United States’ perspective, the United States’ military perspective in particular, that opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”
Mullen was more diplomatic about the consequences if the Israeli government were to launch such an attack, saying he would leave that decision to the Israelis. But his message was the same: “Don’t do it.”
Or as Mullen put it, “this is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to be more unstable.”
Strategically, it almost doesn’t matter whether an attack is launched by Israel or by the United States. The two are viewed as one entity by many in the Middle East. And either way, an attack would create the same backlash from the same parties, leaving the U.S. military to clean up the mess.
Mullen, who had just returned from a visit to the Middle East, no doubt communicated that message bluntly in private discussions with his Israeli counterparts. And as Israeli military analysts have noted, Israeli jets would need U.S. permission to fly over Iraqi airspace to get to their targets in Iran.
Mullen’s words of caution no doubt grated on the ears of those elements in the Bush White House still hankering for military action against Iran. But the admiral made clear his preference for negotiation over war.
“I’m convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior,” Mullen said, “including using diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”
It’s interesting to compare Mullen’s strategic assessment against those of presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain and his top foreign policy advisors, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, have stressed the military approach to Iran and condemned attempts at dialogue advocated by Obama. Mullen, the nation’s highest ranking military officer, takes a position that aligns more closely with that of Obama.
Mullen also echoes Obama in discussing the interplay between our situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mullen candidly acknowledged last week that because of a shortage in U.S. and NATO manpower in Afghanistan, the Taliban “have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks, and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate.”
To alleviate that problem, Obama has advocated drawing down troops in Iraq and using some of those units to bolster our commitment to Afghanistan. Mullen also sees that as a necessity.
“I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can,” he said. “Nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.”
As that last sentence suggests, Mullen’s assessment does differ from that of Obama in one critical aspect. The admiral is not ready to advocate a drawdown in Iraq, saying only that he is hopeful of doing so by the end of the year if conditions in Iraq continue to improve. Obama, on the other hand, is ready to make that call now, insisting that fewer U.S. troops in Iraq and more in Afghanistan would improve the situation in both theaters.
If elected president, Obama will likely find it impossible to draw down in Iraq as quickly as he advocated as a candidate. But he may also find top military officers relieved to have civilian leaders with a more realistic concept of how our men and women in uniform should be deployed.
Comments
By NRB
July 7, 2008 7:30 AM | Link to this
Jay, since you’re such an expert on foreign policy and war, why dont YOU run for president.
A joint effort of Israel and the USA would devastate Iran VERY quickly. We have the capability, regardless of how much moaning and groaning comes out of the liberal media.
Why does it figure the AJC would stick up for Iran. I’m sure you’d like to see them wipe Israel off the map since leftists these days tend to be anti-Semites for some reason.
Another disgusting op-ed. Stick to whining about rich people and promoting communism, you’re at least good at that.
By Poo Byters
July 7, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this
In 1981, Israel unilaterally and preemptively bombed a nuke plant in Iraq. My dentist happened to cheer the breaking news while I was under the drill. I waited until the order to spit into the sink to object. “Israel is crazy! Now they’ve raised the stakes to nuclear war. They’ve given Iraq the right to nuke them or strike their nuke plants. This is insanity, and can only lead to the end of days.”
Well, let me tell you, this dentist wasted no time in turning off the gas and drilling deeper. I dont know why I said that, sir, more gas please. You’re hurting me, sir. I was only joking. It’s good to bomb nuclear plants, that sets a precedent we can all live with. Whoever heard of an arab that held a grudge?
Of course, 3 mile island had just happened, and the China Syndrome was still playing in some theatres, so maybe I was still in shock, and shouldn’t blame the laughing gas.
Now, we are in a death match with the same arabs in the middle east in a war that any child knew enough to avoid. We set the mission bar pretty low in the beginning: we only wanted to depose saddam and capture all those nuke-tipped scud missiles that rose from the iraqi desert floor like so many cacti. The bar has been drifting lower and lower until now, voters only expect that we’ll be stuck in Iraq on Iranian time for 100 years. Mission to be continued…..then Accomplished.
Humans become anesthetized by trauma itself. We have a defense mechanism that allows us to live forever in a state of denial. Simply add in voters attention span and McCain could actually win in November running on the war in Iraq.
I always wondered how the german people could have listened to Hitler’s radio broadcasts after we gutted city after city from the air. Hitler kept lowering the bar for victory. “Only fumpf cities were destroyed by allied air bombardments last night, that’s a dry-unt-fumpfish percent reduction from the night before. They are weakening. Soon ve vill habbens der verld surrounded!!”
We dont know how far China will go to secure their oil bonanza in Iran. They have less people with their finger on the button than we do. But our ‘shooting first and spinning later’ foreign policy will certainly tell us real soon.
Do you trust chinese patience and magnanimity? You better. Bush seems to.
Bush’s decision to go to the olympics in spite of Tiennamin Square and Dalai Lama shows that he still thinks he can play world class ping pong with the top players in the world.
Ping Pong. Sounds like a great name for a Panda.
By Bud Wiser
July 7, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this
I also think we should leave Iran alone, militarily speaking. Maybe we can make nice with them under the leadership of President Obama. His gift of oratory, plus a promise to never bomb or invade them I am sure will persuade the Iranians to see the light.
If we bend low enough on our knees to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , don’t you know he will gracefully cease all nuclear research and development of atomic weaponry, thereby ending our terrorist threat forever? Then he will also open up Iranian oil fields for U.S. usage, thus easing not only our oil crunch that we alone caused for ourselves with our evil SUV’s and typical American wastefulness, but aiding our struggling economy.
A bonus is that our environment will also be saved, since everyone knows that the pollution generated by the other 95% of land based societies just ‘goes away’ or drifts into space or something. Pollution from China, Russia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East doesn’t ever reach our shores, does it? We can thereby save the tundra of ANWR, just in case a lonely or lost animal actually makes its way up there, and then can die in natural peace from starvation instead of a pool of spilled oil. Florida tourism will also be saved and we can resume driving to Disney World in our SUV, then taking a short cruise and admire the beautiful pristine beaches. Oh Happy day! The humanity of it all!!!
All of this awaits us when we elect Obama! I get a shiver down my leg just thinking about it all! Is this what an orgasm of delight feels like? Oh….Oh……oh….oh….ahhhhhhhhhhhh.
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this
NRB @ 7.30 whined: Why does it figure the AJC would stick up for Iran.
I don’t see where they’re “sticking up for Iran,” but now that you mention it, maybe somebody should.
Last I checked, Iran is a nation of 80 million people who may be governed by a nutjob who is backed by theocrats, but beyond that, they haven’t invaded another country nor threatened our nation in any way.
Why the f~~~ do you have such a hard-on to murder Iranians, NRB?
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Bud, kindly cite where Senator Obama promised to never bomb or invade Iran, or any other country.
By Copyleft
July 7, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this
When President Obama suggests doing something smart, all the idiots are offended. Figures.
By TW
July 7, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Ever notice the right, as they pound their tiny little bird chests about Iran, never mention the impact said bombing would have on our relations with China and Russia?
Definately time to give the tough jobs back to the smart people.
Did a guy who lives in a cave just spend the last seven years owning the supposed leader of the free world?
Got Brains??????????
By Bud Wiser
July 7, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
I did not say he had promised such, I was saying that if he offered such a promise, as shown by the (future) tense of the sentence structure - - “…a promise to never bomb or invade them I am sure * * will * * persuade the Iranians…” (emphasis mine).
There, hillbilly. I tried.
By Mike
July 7, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
“McCain and his top foreign policy advisers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, have stressed the military approach to Iran and condemned attempts at dialogue advocated by Obama”
This kind of distortion shows that either:
1) Bookman’s partisanship has caused him to distort reality to suit his world view.
2) Bookman’s partisanship has caused him to write things that he knows are not true in the interest of making a point.
McCain has consistantly said that diplomacy is the first option. Not certain where Bookman gets the notion that McCain is “stressing a military approach”. He certainly did not provide any back up for this claim.
In addition, Bookman claims that McCain is criticizing the idea of dialogue with Iran. What McCain (and many Democrats) has criticized is Obama’s stated willingness to meet with Iran’s leaders with no preconditions.
It is sad that Bookman’s partisanship prevents him from telling the truth. Maybe that is why he has yet to acknowledge the startling progress in Iraq and the success of the surge.
(BTW: Bookman and the rest of the AJC board were firmly against the surge. Will they admit they were wrong? For all of the silly attacks against Bush for not admitting mistakes, you would think the AJC board would show a little intellectual honesty and do likewise. Of course, the AJC board has one set of rules for liberals and another set for everyone else.)
By Bud Wiser
July 7, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
I would love to stay and play with you children, but I have a very high profile golf match in a little over an hour.
All you working stiffs that are bored to hell at work and write in here, have fun!
By ron
July 7, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Bud Wiser,you are as cynical as I.
Wasn’t it Obama that promised to withdraw troops from Iraq as a part of his platform to gain the Democratic nomination,or did I miss something?
When Iran builds it’s first nuclear bomb,Israel will likely be it’s reciprient.The only debate will be is how it will be delivered.
I’m with Mullen.Another war at this time will be very stressful.I firmly believe that wars at any time are stressful.
Unless Iran gets up some morning and decides to change it’s course,we are going to find out.I don’t believe Iran is going to do that.
By Poo Byters
July 7, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
In 1981, Israel unilaterally and preemptively bombed a nuke plant in Iraq. My dentist happened to cheer the breaking news while I was under the drill. I waited until the order to spit into the sink to object. “Israel is crazy! Now they’ve raised the stakes to nuclear war. They’ve given Iraq the right to nuke them or strike their nuke plants. This is insanity, and can only lead to the end of days.”
Well, let me tell you, this dentist wasted no time in turning off the gas and drilling deeper. I dont know why I said that, sir, more gas please. You’re hurting me, sir. I was only joking. It’s good to bomb nuclear plants, that sets a precedent we can all live with. Whoever heard of an arab that held a grudge?
Of course, 3 mile island had just happened, and the China Syndrome was still playing in some theatres, so maybe I was still in shock, and shouldn’t blame the laughing gas.
Now, we are in a death match with the same arabs in the middle east in a war that any child knew enough to avoid. We set the mission bar pretty low in the beginning: we only wanted to depose saddam and capture all those nuke-tipped scud missiles that rose from the iraqi desert floor like so many cacti. The bar has been drifting lower and lower until now, voters only expect that we’ll be stuck in Iraq on Iranian time for 100 years. Mission to be continued…..then Accomplished.
Humans become anesthetized by trauma itself. We have a defense mechanism that allows us to live forever in a state of denial. Simply add in voters attention span and McCain could actually win in November running on the war in Iraq.
I always wondered how the german people could have listened to Hitler’s radio broadcasts after we gutted city after city from the air. Hitler kept lowering the bar for victory. “Only fumpf cities were destroyed by allied air bombardments last night, that’s a dry-unt-fumpfish percent reduction from the night before. They are weakening. Soon ve vill habbens der verld surrounded!!”
We dont know how far China will go to secure their oil bonanza in Iran. They have less people with their finger on the button than we do. But our ‘shooting first and spinning later’ foreign policy will certainly tell us real soon.
Do you trust chinese patience and magnanimity? You better. Bush seems to.
Bush’s decision to go to the olympics in spite of Tiennamin Square and Dalai Lama shows that he still thinks he can play world class ping pong with the top players in the world.
Ping Pong. Sounds like a great name for a Panda.
I’ll bet Buttgeyser’s putter stands up today, it being so close to the pride parade and all
bwa
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
“Shortage of Troops Curtails U.S. Military Operations” was the “hook” title for Bookmans’s editorial in the paper AJC. Not sure why he changed the title here but ……. both titles ignore or hide the real issue. When George H. Bush left office we had 20 Army divisions. When Bill Clinton left office we had 10. George W. Bush has been in office for almost 8 years and WE STILL HAVE 10 !!!
Admiral Mullen’s real point I believe if you could sit down with him in private is “where the heck is our Army”? We are at war with Islamic militia terrorists AND Islamic state terrorists as dangerous to us as our enemies in WWII (by the way the Army had close to 100 divisions then).
WE HAD BEST GET READY and I don’t see an Obama president doing that.
By Duke Nuke Em
July 7, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
I really get a kick out of reading some of the macho nuke ‘em stances taken by some bloggers. Talking tough, Clint Eastwood style. The Army needs you grunts on the ground right now. Haven’t you heard. The first step is up to you — It’s a volunteer army, at the moment. So sign up and get on over there. Don’t sit around and wait for the draft to be re-instated. We don’t need no armchair generals — we need grunts. Or, are you just a bunch of Macho, Macho Men. Don’t make me come and drag you out of that cozy recliner. We got wars to fight, spoils to claim, populations to control. By the way, did I mention that we have guns. Real Guns. Guns with real bullets. Really big bullets. And bombs. We got all kinds of things that go BOOM!. I gotcha, didn’t I.
By Eric1
July 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
I can’t think of a single issue over the past 7 plus years where the bushies have gotten it right. The biggest debacle has been military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet these brain tumors insist on defending the idiots who created this mess. Right wingnuts please stay home in November.
By Poo Byters
July 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
That’s nothing. The Chinese could field a hundren million man army, you fools.
They could win any war, conventional or nuclear. They’re simply too many.
In the Korean War they kept coming and coming. We’d empty our weapons into them time and time again, but they wouldn’t stop coming.
Macarthur proved to be a great tactical general, but no strategist, and certainly no president. If it were up to him, we’d still be in that war with china, and there’d be nothing left of us.
Truman would have throttled Cheney and his Iraq War.
What we need is another Truman Term.
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
Oh, my bad, Bud. I should’ve just assumed you were making stuff up about Obama and that your silly, paranoid post wasn’t to be taken seriously. Got it. Enjoy that thing you call “golf”, and what the rest of us call “broiling in the sun for 5 hours (if you’re lucky) chasing a little ball around and pretending to enjoy it.” I understand it’s slightly more tolerable if a lot of beer is involved.
And ron, do tell—why would Iran decide to lob a nuke at a nation that has 150 of them ready to lob back? big-picture question for the conservative hawks here: why do you assume that Iran’s 80 million citizens want to commit collective suicide?
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
To Poo Byters:
Another Truman term? Really? The only guy who had the guts to nuke the Japanese?
I disagree. If we had nuked the Chinese Army when they crossed their border, Korea would be one democratic country and we probably would not have had Vietnam.
By ron
July 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Hillbilly,I don’t believe that Iran’s citizens want to commit suicide,but I’ve got my doubts about their leaders.
By Taxpayer
July 7, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
This talk about us needing to keep Iran from getting nukes is just plain old and futile. First of all, there are so many countries with nukes already that no one could really know who has what any more. Second, there are lots of countries that “promote” nuclear power in order to make money on power plants, bombs, etc. It’s the capitalist way. Third, no one (sane, that is) really wants to start dropping nukes or bombing nuke facilities because of the potential for turning everything, including their own back yard, into a waste land. Forth, if some terrorist does manage to set off a nuke or even a dirty bomb, that will be more than enough to get the entire world involved and it won’t be US against them. Believe it or not, we cannot and should not try to tackle such an issue alone. So, like it or not, the “Cold War” never really ended. It just took a respite while Russia reorganized and dispersed its arsenal and other nations either strengthened or acquired their own nuclear-stroked voices. Nowadays, it’s a little more involved than the good old days of daisies in the field and school desks for shelter from the fallout. Anyway, if the possession of nukes is the criteria for being evil, then that “axis of evil” looks more like the “wheel of fortune” — it has a LOT of spokes.
By T
July 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Attack Iran? Ok, with what soldiers? The ones just coming home. Maybe, we can deploy them 18 mo. in Iraq, then 6 mo. in Afgan., then 12 mo. in Iran. Good idea. Or maybe with all the new recruits that are beating down the recruiter doors. Oh, I know use the draft.
By GOPs got to go
July 7, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
.
Hillbilly Raggers description of Iran having a Nutjob President backed up by Theocrats sounds a lot like the Shrub to me.
America simply does not have the resources to open up a third front. Unless you Put-up-Dukes trash talkers want to actually enlist or send YOUR kids over. I still say a draft will end this nonsense in a hurry. Dusty’s darling kids getting shot at!!! Oh no, that is for the Latinos, Blacks and poor White kids. Mine are destined for Wall Street.
By ron
July 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Mr.T,I’ve always been an advocate of the draft.I started with the “Ask not what your country can do for you,”President, and I still believe those words.The birthday lottery draft was fair and there is a need for people to serve their country. Under that draft people still signed up voluntarily and we had the added bonus of getting rid of people that didn’t think they should serve.Jimmy Carter let them come back,but I know for a fact that a lot of them are now Canadian citizens. We have a deserter now up there that looks as if he’s going to be granted asylum.Let Canada have him.
By T
July 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Well, Draft it is. This is a new day and age, let women get their named called. A soldier is a soldier.
Its not just the lack of soldiers. The military is also having trouble with the maintnance of their equipment. Maybe Washington should listen to their military leaders when they say it’s not a good idea.
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Mike @ 8.26, ]the surge is not working.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/the-surge-is-working-notb108976.html)
Simply repeating a lie doesn’t make it more truthful.
By CommunistAJC
July 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Jay, We now have France, Germany and Great Britain beating the bomb drum for Iran. Didn’t John F. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, say that we needed Europe on our side? Well, looks like we have them on our side. They are sick of muslims trying to take over but are too weak, thanks to liberalism and political correctness, to do anything about it on their own. I hope we bomb Iran back to the stone ages.
Copyleft, Clinton sat on his butt getting bjs and got us bombed on 911. We don;t need anymore inaction by our presidents. Obama Hussein will let us get nuked so it’s better to have a leader instead of an appeaser.
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Commie @ 10.13, for blaming 9/11 on Clinton, and reminding us what all the conservative blather about “personal” responsibility” is actually worth.
By CommunistAJC
July 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
hillbilly ragger, I’ll put the blame where the blame is due. On ISLAM! It was Clinton who got us bombed FOUR times. He did nothing but get bjs in the oval office.
By Believer
July 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Hold the presses. The Commie is saying that Bill bought and paid for four terrorist bombing raids against us. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach.
By Dusty
July 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
So much for the fantasy war games being played here.
The USA has not said it will bomb Iran.
McCain has not said he would bomb Iran.
Obama will tell us tomorrow what his flip of the day will be on Iran but probably no bombing.
We DO keep an eye on Iran as it is one of the bullies on the world playground.
Watching something is NOT bombing it! GOT IT????
By Hillbilly Deluxe
July 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
A couple of points to ponder. In international matters like these what’s being said in public is very different from what is going on behind the scenes by all sides. Is it now? I don’t know but it’s something to consider.
Truman is very popular now in some circles but he was a very unpopular President when he left office.
Douglas McArthur burned the Bonus Army camp in Washington defying a direct order to not cross the bridge and go into the camp.
Officers really should obey orders.
By AJC/DNC Management
July 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
Today marks the beginning of the end for the jay kookman blog.
I plan on so thoroughly embarrassing you liberal dhimmokrat klowns that the only choice that the AJC/DNC will have is to cut and run from this blog, as they did with luckovich.
Get ready for all the angry phone calls from Code Pinko, kookman.
Just ask cartoon boy what a nightmare that has been.
Bwa.
By Believer
July 7, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
No Sir. When Bush goes into Iran, it will be with leaflets instead of bombs. It’s part of the Republican Party strategy. Start with dropping pictures of bombs along with some of those fancy captions. Maybe he’ll resurrect the brain thing. You know the one. “This is your brain” under the picture of a normal nuclear-free Iran, and “This is your brain on nukes” under a picture of a stealth bomber flying low over Tehran. After all, Bush has finished with North Korea and put them in their place before the November election. Now, he’s got to focus on Iran and get them taken care of in order to finalize that legacy. Without that, his presidential library is going to look might bleak.
By Abomi Nation
July 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Why do we need a draft? With this huge threat hanging over us surely all those patriotic war supporters will be heading to the nearest recruiting station. You know, just like they did for Iraq.
Of course our hawks didn’t flood the recruiting station. They gave themselves amnesty. They have better things to do. You know school and careers. Nothing better than a game of golf right Bud! Our chicken hawks didn’t even have to go to Canada this time!
Wow, I’m sure the President of Iran is sitting at home shivering in fear. NOT! Guess what? They have access to the Internet in Iran. They have seen how our “warriors” think they can win a war just by blogging. They know that our “warriors” prefer tax cuts and Jacuzzis. They have visited the Georgia Young Republicans website and have noticed that they don’t mention a single time about the need to serve their country in a time of war. Not even a token word of support to our troops. Not even a yellow ribbon.
Our “warriors” have aided the enemy.
Headline you will never see….BLOG WARRIOR KILLS 17 TERRORISTS WITH SINGLE STROKE OF HIS KEYBOARD
Now watch this drive…………………………….
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Commie @ 10.24, really, just stop. you’re embarrassing yourself, and you suck at this.
Clinton brought the WTC bombers to justice. His national security team advised Bush that international terrorism would be their number one problem.
Bush’s answer was to ignore the problem, even after he’d received an EZ-2-Read daily briefing that made Bin Laden’s plans plain enough for even der Chimperor to understand.
By Batchamamakoodles
July 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
If we are going to have a global war on terror, we need to reinstitute the draft and put Rosie and Roger the Riveters back to work. If the threat is that dire and the need so great, let’s put the necessary work into it.
By CommunistAJC
July 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
hillbilly ragger, I’m embarrassing myself? Don’t kid yourself buddy. Clinton did not do a thing. How about the USS Cole and the US Embassy? How about when the Saudis were going to hand over Bin Laden? Um, Clinton said that Iraq was the biggest problem. Not terrorism. Obama Hussein believes socialist healthcare is the biggest issue. I can’t wait for him to start dealing with terrorism. Should be funny watching our enemies laughing at us again.
By hillbilly ragger
July 7, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Yes, Commie, you’re embarassing yourself. Go ahead, bring up the Cole. Tell us what your Daddy Preznit did when he took office two months after that particular incident.
beyond that, you’re just mouthing crap you’ve heard on Hannity. And if you’re going to repeat tales of “handing over Bin Laden,” at least get the damn nationalities straight.
I repeat: You suck at this.
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Did anyone see my published AJC “vent” today ?
“If we knew then what we know now and had the capability to destroy all of the Japanese carriers in their ports on Thanksgiving Day 1941, should we have done it? Now, what about Iran?”
By CommunistAJC
July 7, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
hillbilly ragger, I suck at what? Commenting on a hack newspaper website? Wow. That really hurts my feelings inbred man.
By RealityKing
July 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Just image the Middle East without a tyrannical Iran regime there to fund and support terrorism. Not that the self-centered progressively liberal pacifists are ever going to do anything to help anyone but themselves..
By Mike
July 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Adm. Mullen is part of the liberal media? The professionals in the Pentagon don’t think we are capable of sustaining our current manning in Iraq, let alone taking on a new conflict. Sure, we could destroy large swaths of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but there’s no guarantee we could get all of it. And there’s a 100 percent certainty that an unprovoked attack on Iran would greatly improve the political prospects of the jihadist hardliners there.
By GOPs got to go
July 7, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
You are absolutely right about a female draft. Please sign up Jenna Bush and the other one first.
By T
July 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
GOPs got to go
Well VP Cheney’s daughter is a no go being all openly gay. Maybe if she doesnt tell they will let that slide.
The Draft!!!
By Jay's brother
July 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Nothing like good news from Iraq to send liberals into hysterical frenzy to prop up their defeatist/appeasment mantra. Maliki and the Iraqi govt who had been pleading for us not to leave prematurely are now talking about a timetable for withdrawl. Sadr’s forces have been neutralized. Other Arab govts now engaging politically with Iraq. Oil contracts heaven forbid are now up for bids to the int’l community. Darn, nothing like good news from Iraq to foil the Defeatocrats plans for the fall. In fact, things are so good, that Obama is yet reneging on ANOTHER promise—-to withdraw 1 battalion per month. Mr. Wet-finger-in-theiwind knows he can’t screw up a good thing, even though it pains him to see that the military in Iraq are doing such a great job.
By Abomi Nation
July 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
Happy Days are Here again J- Bro! Hip-Hip-Hooray!
Gosh things are going so good in Iraq maybe, just maybe the Republicans will cancel the restraining order they have against President Bush that prevents Bush from getting within ten miles of the Minneapolis/St Paul arena during the Republican convention.
When is Bush’s ticker tape parade?
By RealityKing
July 7, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Evidently Jay missed this weekend’s announcement by Iran in which they rejected all nuclear dialogs with the EU and UN.
So American inaction requires everyone to take Iran at its word now, but of course that won’t do either now will it.., especially seeing as to how the progressive left is so easily miss led these days and all..
I wonder who Jay is going to blame when we have to, by treaty, nuke 80 million Iranians in retaliation for a decision made by a few tyrants? The Iranian people? Bush’s inactions??
By Brian
July 7, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
James Winslo,
Your comments indicate the folly of the far right…..Truman is most-often credited with the maxim “The only thing we don’t know is the history we haven’t learned” (He didn’t coin it, but was very fond of it).
The history you haven’t learned is that Vietnam and China were arch-enemies. So, just how do you think nuking the Chinese would have kept SOVIET supported NVA from toppling the west-backed puppet Rep of Vietnam regime??
By Taxpayer
July 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
James,
Get real. If we had bombed Japan’s fleet in their harbor, we would have been the Axis nation listed beside Germany and Italy and Japan would have, rightfully, been listed among the Allied nations. Don’t you understand what makes us better or at least made us better back then. We were not the war-mongering aggressor in WWII.
By V Miller
July 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Ironic. Iran has come closer on the bomb, than Iraq, but that’s another story…
I would note that Iran would like to be seen as a unifier under Islam, yet in so many areas the Arabs are pushing back. Let the Arabs keep the Persians in check, they’ve been at it far longer than we, and in the meantime, the mullahs will more and more handle their prez. For all their mischief with various terrorist groups, Iranian losses in the Iraq-Iran War (that Saddam started) I suspect leaves them little taste for anything of that level again.
That said, just keep out Navy in the Gulf and the lanes open. Beyond that, options other than war, are probably a good idea.
By Swiftboat McCain Now
July 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Can we try to fix the 2 wars that Bush started and blundered before endeavoring to start another one?
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
To Brian:
1) I guess you weren’t there like I was. Yes, they were enemies BEFORE and AFTER the war but not during. READ your history. Do you not know that the great bulk of their supplies came out of China? Limited amounts came by ship from the Soviet Union. We tried to drop the main railroad bridges between the China and North Vietnam at great loss to our pilots.
2) Tactical nukes are great weapons. They reek havoc on military personnel and installations without substantial loss to the citizenry.
To Taxpayer:
So let me get this straight, if the police raid a terrorist cell BEFORE they attack us then WE are the agressor. Your logic is amazing !
It’s kind of like my training in law enforcement “101”. There are no rules that say the bad guy gets to shoot first. No, the rule is that the police officer gets to go home to his family at the end of the watch.
By Karl Rove
July 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
You know if we had not focus on Iraq, We could have prevented Iran from obtaining NUCLEAR WEAPONS>
I(rove) told W-Bush we need to focus on poor North Korea who people are starving!
Also let’s focus on Iran because Iraq is starving also, but W told me we are going to own Iraq so we can get our hands on that oil!
I(Rove) told W-Bush, how about we not send our troops to die in Iraq and pass a bill to drill in ANWAR and The United States for oil.
W-Bush stated my oil buddies don’t want to drill in the U.S. we can’t make any money in the US, the americans don’t want to pay high gas prices but if we destabilize the Middle east we can raise gas prices.
I(Rove) told W-Bush you are a smart man!
By Taxpayer
July 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
James,
Don’t even go there. First, don’t change the subject. Second, don’t put words in my mouth. YOU brought up the asinine question regarding us blowing up Japan’s fleet IF (Ifs and buts and candy and nuts…) we had only known what we know today. Well, James. Do tell. What do we know today. Perhaps, IF we were that wise then maybe we would have just figured out a way to avoid blowing up anything at all. Why is your brain limited to just blowing up things. If that’s your only solution, I hear the Army has a spot for you on the front line. Go for it, Macho, Macho Man.
By JeepersCreepers
July 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
I say we be more like the Europeans like the liberals want us to do. Then we could start WWIII and be legit.
By newkid
July 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Mr. Winslo, what you appear to discount - in your perhaps flippant remark about the advisability of nuking China during the Korean War - is that there was a Sino-Soviet defense agreement in-place at the time that committed Stalin to coming to the defense of China in the event of a US attack on China. The Soviet Union, like the US, had nuclear weapons (although not as many as the US) in the early 1950s, and a US nuclear attach on China would have most assuredly been countered by a counter Soviet nuclear attack on the still rebuilding nations of western European. And what then? So all of humanity was likely well served by the fact that the sort of mad linear thinking suggested by your reasoning didn’t come to fruition during the Korean War. Human life on earth may very well still exist BECAUSE such a stunt wasn’t attempted.
We could all do with a closer study of human history, couldn’t we?
By RealityKing
July 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
“If elected president, Obama will likely find it impossible to draw down in Iraq as quickly as he advocated as a candidate. “
i.e… Obama has already misled America about his intensions in Iraq!?
By RealityKing
July 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
Will the real Obama please stand up…
1) End the war in 2009?
2) 1 - 2 brigades out per month?
3) Listen to his military advisers?
4) Newly refined position??
By Abomi Nation
July 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
Maybe Obama should just “Stay the course of a course of a horses Azz.”
You know, follow Bush’s trail.
By Abomi Nation
July 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Whoops, sorry.
I just found out that McCain has already claimed “Stay the course of a course of a horses Azz” as his campaign slogan.
How about “Mission Accomplished?” Has that been taken?
By Blind Homer
July 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
“Strategically it’s the same if we bomb them or the Israelis do, the US military will be left to clean up the mess?” No, the Israelis will destroy their nuclear capability, because they have to, and the Iranians will be left to clean up the mess. It’s time to get beyond the boots on the ground and the rebuilding nonsense and just bomb, bomb, bomb.
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
To newkid:
Ah, but you talk strategically and do err tactically, son. We wouldn’t have attacked China. That was NOT the plan. However, we could (and should) have used low-yield tactical nuclear artillery and bombs against Chinese troops WAY INSIDE of North Korea and in actuality we wouldn’t have needed to do even that. In that desolate, rugged terrain up there, all McArthur (and many others) wanted to do was drop them miles IN FRONT of their advance. Guess what - march your troops through that and they die in a few days - their choice …….. I suppose you know that we were prepared (and still are) to do just that (tactical nukes) in Europe had the Soviets decided to invade. The plans are sitting right there in the Pentagon along with many others.
Sorry Taxpayer:
You also do err. READ your own post. YOU SAID we would have been the “war mongering agressor” had we hit Japan first. Any smart commander knows if you know you are absolutely going to get in a fight you had better get in the first punch.
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivilized who can”.
By Taxpayer
July 7, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
James,
I hear Georgia State is offering reading comprehension classes. Sign up.
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
To Taxpayer:
So, you choose to ignore your own statement ?
“Don’t you understand what makes us better or at least made us better back then. We were not the war-mongering aggressor in WWII.” by Taxpayer
Fine with me.
P.S. Research the 1967 Israeli War with their lovely neighbors Jordan, Egypt and Syria who were secretly preparing to invade Israel. Had Israel not launched a “pre-emptive stike”, they would not be a nation today.
By newkid
July 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
Winslo @ 9:14 a.m.
“…. If we had nuked the Chinese Army when they crossed their border…”
Thankfully Truman, the folks at State, our National Security Council, and our allies all realized the folly in your sort of thinking, and wisely decided to move toward an armistice. By the way, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons were but a vision during the Korean War. To quote the famous Yale Cold War historian John L. Gaddis, “…the president and his advisors were as uncertain about what they could actually do with nuclear weapons when they left office in 1953 as they had been in 1949.”
Apparently some of us have absolutely no problem with falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre without any real sense of the unintended consequences.
By Blind Homer
July 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
First strike China now with everything we’ve got. Nuke them from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure!
By Constructive Feedback
July 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman:
I read your opinions with great amazement at times.
Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?
Do you see any particular threat by Iran having an operating nuclear plant?
Is this a “US/Israel” problem or a “World” problem?
If this is a World problem in your view - where is your demands placed on the United Nations and or the key nations that you and others reference as standard bearers? Do you ask any particular priority in diplomatic or military response to the situation?
With Iran having ignored a series of UN mandates on the subject of nukes - what gives you confidence that talking is the answer?
(as a preemptive response to the usual notation) Does the fact that Israel has also ignored UN mandates bring us any closer to a resolution of the problem with Iran - or is this simply a diversion?
Thank you in advance.
By Andrew
July 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
Iran only wants a bomb to deter people from attacking them. You don’t throw all the guns out of the house when the thugs come to take your stuff.
By Pat
July 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
Please Lord,
Don’t let there be a President Obama. I can’t afford it.
http://www.cafepress.com/NObamaforPres
By hounddog
July 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this
We are reaping what Jimmy Carter sowed…
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
Feedback for Feedback:
Do I have problems with Iran having a nuclear plant? Not necessarily, depending on how the fuel is handled. A nuclear bomb? Yes.
It is a world problem, and no, I am not confident that negotiations will handle it.
However, I have also read extensively and talked to a few folks who know such things, and that research confirms that a military strike could probably set the Iranians back two or three years, but could not stop a determined Iranian effort to make a bomb. Their nuke facilities are scattered and well bunkered. Furthermore, the biggest obstacle to building a nuke is the knowledge. A bombing attack will not destroy the knowledge.
In fact, a US or Israeli strike would all but guarantee an Iranian bomb at some point in the future. For one thing, it would swing Iranian public opinion firmly behind their current government and its policies, just as 9/11 rallied our own country behind President Bush.
An attack would also make the Iranians even MORE determined to get a nuclear weapon, because they know that a nuclear weapon buys them protection against future such attacks.
Why didn’t we attack North Korea? Why did we handle Pakistan with such kid gloves after 9/11, even though the Pakistani gov’t had sponsored the Taliban?
Because they had the nuke. The Iranians know that.
By James
July 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
To newkid:
1) It’s a shame we didn’t use nuclear devices against Chinese troops way inside the North Korean border as I said before. You DO REMEMBER I hope that North Korea attacked South Korea? There was a plan to “salt” the major invasion routes with “nuclear material” that would have caused them a lot of grief and saved thousands of American and South Korean lives. If you have ever seen napalm used (which I have) it really doesn’t make that much difference to the individual.
2) Do you believe that the two nuclear bombs should have been dropped on Japan? If not, why not?
Questions for Taxpayer:
1) If the FBI knows that a TERRORIST CELL in Chicago is planning to set off a “dirty bomb” in that city and they use force to prevent that, is the FBI being the aggressor?
2) If a U.S. military commander in the Middle East knows that a TERRORIST MILITIA GROUP is planning to send people to Chicago to set off a “dirty bomb” and he uses special forces to “neutralize” them is he being the aggressor?
3) If the Pentagon knows a TERRORIST COUNTRY is planning to use nuclear devices against several cities in the United States and the President launches a “pre-emptive strike” is the U.S. being the aggressor?
4) Finally, if someone sneaks into your house one night and is about to kidnapp one of your little girls and YOU come up behind him and “nail” him with a baseball bat (I know you probably don’t have a gun in the house) would you be the aggressor ?
By Mike S
July 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this
Some of you are killing the messenger, a fruitless exercise. It was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has warned against a third war, not some newspaper columnist. Andrew makes a great point. Read about some of the atrocities Iraq committed against Iran (like electrocuting thousands of Iranians in a swamp) in their war, and you might understand why Iran would want nukes. Especially when tin horns like Georgie W., Dick (I’m too busy to serve in Vietnam) Cheney and Condo (I feel pretty) Rice were screaming about Saddam having an arsenal ready to go.
By Dusty
July 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this
OH Dubya, Oh Dubya, Oh Dubya…. Oh I mean Bubba, Oh Bubba, Oh Bubba
By James
July 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this
To Jay:
Answer:
1) Bomb them every three years if that’s what it takes. If we don’t - you know who will! Israel already has their “doomsday plan” and you know what that is. If they go down, so does every city in the Middle East. I think it’s better if we do it because as bad as the hoopla will be you know what the Muslim world thinks of Jews and Israel.
2) They also have to have a delivery system. Keep taking them out.
3) The biggest mistake is to think you can negotiate with religious fanatics. You have a slight chance with political fanatics but not these guys. They only understand brute force.
By RW (the original)
July 7, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this
Answers for James. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and you’re a moron.
Reasoning behind my knowing that you’re a total idiot: Your questions presume an intel coup of a conspiracy to detonate a WMD inside a US city.
The reliability of our intel has been zero for 10000 in the past 50 years. Remember, Macarthur said the Chinese wouldn’t attack if we hugged the yaloo river with our divisions. When we have been right, your man W ignored the obvious because it came for the era of the lewinski mess. A good christian boy cant trust nuthin’ ‘bout no BJ. Right?
I dont ordinarily respond to nincompoops but at least you’re half-witted. Usually all I get are sociopathic retards rejected from the “1 flew over” sequel’s cattle calls.
Blog on, nobody read U anyway, so blog on.
BTW: U just experienced the greatest moments of your life.
By Midori
July 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this
sniff, sniff
I knew I smelled something - GOP failure, rot and stink at 6:14.
By newkid
July 7, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this
What I believe, John, is that we’re utterly stupid to expect useful insight regarding the advisability of the use of potentially earth-ending nuclear weapons to come from entities such as newkid and Winslo who are much more apt to be full of bluster, an exaggerated sense of the power of their gonads, and a deficiency of information than we are apt to be wisely and fully informed by those who indeed do have a authentic sense of the truth and real consequences of such actions. I’ve absolutely no illusions about the fact that the wider I study (and I’ve for some years been dedicated to doing so), the more I realize how little I really know about so much.
Now it’s back to my latest title - The Nine. Do enjoy your evening.
By James
July 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Link to this
To RW:
This blog is about debate not name calling. If you can’t do that, I hope the AJC blocks you. Jay - are you listening ?
To newkid:
You didn’t answer my question about dropping the two “big ones” on Japan.
By Mike S
July 7, 2008 10:06 PM | Link to this
James, you’re not debating. You’re haranguing and posing ridiculous questiona and making up lies and frothing at the mouth and looking forward to seeing people die. That’s not just moronic, but scummy too.
By War Eagle
July 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Link to this
JAY, WHY IS IT WITH YOU LIBERALS, WHEN PROGRESS IS MADE YOU START B***..BE AMERICAN, NOT A MOVE-ON.COM OR HUFFINGTON POST.COM….USA WILL PREVAIL IN IRAQ EVEN IF YOU AND CYNTHIA OPPOSE? COX COMMUNICATION IS SQUARE TO KEEP YOU AND CYNTHIA AROUND…
By James Winslo
July 7, 2008 10:47 PM | Link to this
To Mike S:
I don’t think I have conversed with you before. I am fairly recently retired (2 years military, 4 college and then 34 in Federal Law Enforcement - age 61) and this blogging thing is new to me as I never had the time before.
However, I continue to be amazed at the lack of debating skills. People like you just have standard “come backs” instead of debating point by point. For example, “newkid” has yet to answer a very simple question about dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
I really do enjoy debating a liberal as long as he/she is articulate and reasoned. I always learn something about the other side. It’s always good to “know your political counterpart” and how they think. I usually even number my points to make it easier.
It is really quite disturbing to read all the ranting, name calling and drivel that substitutes for debate. Obviously, since we’re blogging I don’t know if you guys are teenagers, taking drugs or if you have been drinking before you got on the blog. As I said before, I wish the AJC monitors would do a better job of limiting who gets to respond based on a review of their comments and that includes me.
Nice to meet you.
By Taxpayer
July 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this
James,
You want to know so much. We may have to work out a payment plan if I have to write that whole book for you. You do know these story lines are pretty much passe. Anyway, I’m still awake and nothing to watch on TV:
Questions for Taxpayer:
1) If the FBI knows that a TERRORIST CELL in Chicago is planning to set off a “dirty bomb” in that city and they use force to prevent that, is the FBI being the aggressor?
James, I’ll need more information. How long has the FBI known of this cell. How did they learn of this cell. How was it determined that this cell is comprised of “terrorists”. How did they determine that a dirty bomb would be involved. Do the “terrorists” have the radioactive material in their possession and if so how was it received, i.e., route taken starting with point of origin and do they have a legal claim to this material, i.e., is it for a legitimate business purpose and were proper procedures followed in the acquisition of this material. Who are the point men in the DoD, CIA, etc., and what efforts have they made to monitor and/or secure the radioactive material before it reached US soil or was the material acquired from a domestic source, etc. As for the FBI, you know they are not in the business of preemptive strikes against law-abiding US citizens — they are a police force. Are we talking about US citizens. If they are not here legally, then why are they still here. Is it due to a shortage of funding. Is the local staff overworked. If they are US citizens, does the FBI have confirmation of illegal or suspicious activity such as purchase of large quantities of dual-purpose materials, etc., which can be used to obtain additional warrants, wire taps, etc. Let’s hope the appropriate organizations can work successfully with the state to thwart any criminal and/or terrorist activity on US soil.
2) If a U.S. military commander in the Middle East knows that a TERRORIST MILITIA GROUP is planning to send people to Chicago to set off a “dirty bomb” and he uses special forces to “neutralize” them is he being the aggressor?
Again, you leave far too many questions unanswered. Where is this military commander and has he followed procedure appropriate to the given situation. Has this commander been given authorization by his superiors to neutralize an enemy combatant or is he a rogue commander. Is this group located in a country that is cooperating with US forces or would this strike, if traceable back to US forces, be grounds for military action against the US.
3) If the Pentagon knows a TERRORIST COUNTRY is planning to use nuclear devices against several cities in the United States and the President launches a “pre-emptive strike” is the U.S. being the aggressor?
James, please. Now you are talking cold war stuff except you are labeling the country as a terrorist. So, are you talking about a country such as Russia that has delivery systems capable of reaching the US or are we talking about someone like North Korea. Are we talking about Russia setting up silos in Cuba or China sending suspicious payloads up to a “peacetime” secret space station. Have we physically detected the launch of ICBMs or not. Is our missile defense system operational yet or not.
4) Finally, if someone sneaks into your house one night and is about to kidnapp one of your little girls and YOU come up behind him and “nail” him with a baseball bat (I know you probably don’t have a gun in the house) would you be the aggressor ?
James, are you just being silly or what. If someone breaks into my house…get real. This person would never make it through my defenses undetected much less alive. A black bear tried once and it’s still sporting an afro with a bit of a burnt hair smell to it. I guess it can at least consider itself lucky that I had the amperage turned down to stun that day. It walks with a funny twitch now as well. I still see it wandering by in search of food from time to time. Poor thing. It just gives me a sad look from a distance when passing by. I almost feel sorry for it — almost.
By AL
July 7, 2008 11:47 PM | Link to this
I’ve heard reaches before BUT Admiral Mullen and Obama sharing the same ideology takes the cake. Barrack Obama knows absolutely frigging nothing about foreign policy. His handlers may have told him to say this or that or align yourself more in the middle with these statements etc. etc. But to say that he has a thought out strategy for our troops other than the back-peddling he’s been doing is laughable.
By James
July 8, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
To Taxpayer:
“Don’t you understand what makes us better or at least made us better back then. We were not the war-mongering aggressor in WWII.” by Taxpayer
Well, it looks like I finally got to you for some debate. By your “scenario questions” you admit the U.S. (or a person for that matter) can act FIRST (given the right situation and set of facts) and NOT be the AGGRESSOR !
I rest my case.
By Taxpayer
July 8, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
James. Oh, James. Not once did I make any claim about taking aggressive action first. I said, in so many words, that I could be the aggressor when someone trespasses on my property. After all, their act of trespass is aggression that deserves an aggressive response. I merely took a defensive posture first. I made no claim regarding an aggressive act in the other cases. I simply asked questions in an effort to determine if these so-called terrorists were even worth watching. A defensive posture might be warranted based on these “terrorist’s” activities. Monitoring someone is hardly an act of aggression. Also, my statement regarding WWII still stands. It is fact. We were not the aggressor and we were the “better” for it.
By James
July 8, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer, Oh, Taxpayer:
Appreciate the debate. Bottom line: There is a time and a place to get the first lick in - especially if you are doing it to prevent the death of innocent civilians. Law enforcement does it everyday and I pray out country continues to practice it when absolutely necessary. To coin a phrase “the best defense is a good offense.”
By the way, what are your thoughts on the 1967 Israeli War of “Aggression” when they launched a surprise pre-emptive strike against four other countries on their border who were massing troops to attack them. It was the only thing that saved their country. I was a little preoccupied at the time in my own war on the other side of the world but I have been fascinated with how they pulled that one off.
By RW-(the original)
July 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Oh my! My first ever visit to this blog and I see that Polly has already namejacked me here.
Polly,
You keep forgetting the hyphen, but at least you fooled Midori. Not a difficult task, but I guess it’s something.
James,
Should I visit this blog more often rest assured that I’m all for a hearty debate and that I don’t initiate name calling ever.
By newkid
July 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Sorry James, I truly wasn’t ignoring you. It’s just that I found far more stimulating diversions elsewhere.
Cheers my friend.
By James Winslo
July 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
To RW:
It’s not just this blog or the other AJC blogs. It’s true almost anywhere but I thought the AJC would regulate it a little more. Try it for awhile but the same “handles” keep popping up that won’t engage in polite reasoned debate.
To newkid:
That’s more than o.k. if you don’t want to debate. It’s a free country. But if so, I’m not sure why you take time to even check into the blog unless it is to just throw another dart (“stimulating diversions elsewhere”) instead of addressing the main blog question or questions from bloggers ???
By the way, you still didn’t answer my question about Japan.
By Taxpayer
July 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this
Israel is not my problem, James. I’m a US citizen.
By James
July 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
To Taxpayer:
“Israel is not my problem, James. I’m a US citizen.”
Wow! Is that an amazing statement you made. I suggest it is YOUR problem because they are our ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East (including Iraq). Because Islamic terrorists hate Israel so much and want to see them wiped off the face of the earth, they also hate us. That made it a “problem” for the people in the Twin Towers on 9/11 and it makes it YOUR problem especially if you or your family are affected by another attack. In any case, what affects your country directly “should” concern you as a “citizen”.
Now back to the “aggressor” thing. If you wish to continue the discussion - what is YOUR OPINION on what Israel did in the 1967 War when they launched a “pre-emptive strike” to save their country.
If you don’t want to debate just ignore this.
By Taxpayer
July 9, 2008 6:45 AM | Link to this
I can’t help it if you don’t like my answer. Besides, what’s your definition of debate — lovefest? We have our own nation and people to take care of. Also, what good are we as an ally to anyone in real need (such as in WWII) if we are bust? That’s the course that Bush has us on. Further, I see no benefit in continuing to fight the Crusades. Don’t you realize that “an eye for an eye” mentality will not end until one side says “Enough” or one or both sides is completely destroyed and there is no one left that is either willing or able to continue the noble fight. What’s the point? War is for losers. Losers with nothing better to do with their lives. We will all die soon enough as it is. Try enjoying a little peace in your life. Stop living in fear of what lies behind that Bush. Who knows, even an old war monger like you might just enjoy it. Someone has to be man enough to say war is not an answer to anything other than how do you want to die. As for you, James, if you want to fight back the Muslim horde, go for it. Move to Israel and enlist. I’m sure they’re in search of a few good men.
Now, if you don’t want to risk another comment from me that you may disagree with or even be amazed at, don’t reply.
By GodHatesTrash
July 9, 2008 7:19 AM | Link to this
I’m more worried about some paranoid crazy old fart with a handgun deciding I looked at him funny than I am about a terrorist attack.
But I must confess, I’m not really worried about either.
By James Winslo
July 9, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
To Taxpayer:
You ignored my question which went back to our original debate about what constituted “aggression”. I repeat, I would like to know your views on what Israel did in the 1967 War when they launched a “pre-emptive strike” to save their country. Was that “aggression” or “self-defense”. It’s just a history question. Not that difficult.
By Taxpayer
July 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
James,
That depends on what the definition of “is” is.
By James Winslo
July 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
No problem if you won’t or “can’t” answer the question. That’s why liberals don’t do well on talk radio. But, last I heard, blogging is voluntary.
Adieu ……….