Sunday, September 24, 2006

Attacking Iran Before The November Election

Has there *ever* been a so-called October Surprise?

It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Ah yes, the oil card. Because we're just shipping that Iraqi oil straight to Main Street USA, aren't we?

It's statements like those above that make the American Left impossible to take seriously. And the comments to Gary Hart's column are even worse.

11 comments:

Brook Stevens said...

of course its all for the oil and not for the fact of maybe ... national security with a country that wants to wipe israel off the map .. yet he says he is an all loving leader that hates nobody

rightwingprof said...

See Rick Moran's response to this -- I gave it article of the day, but I probably should have given it article of the week.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you're all so misinformed. I truly hope you get the true information some day.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand.

Why do you hate our troops?

Darren said...

Anonymous, please enlighten us.

And where do you read *anything* against the US military in this post or in the preceeding comments?

Reading comprehension. Give it a try.

Anonymous said...

Do you see another reason to invade Iran? It's not our job to police the world—yet Bush seems to think it is. Seriously Mr. Miller, do you ever wonder why the world hates America? Because we seem to think that we can invade any country that does something that we don't like; coincidentally, they might have large oil resources...but we weren't thinking about that! We were just thinking about playing world police.

And yeah, what's the thing against the troops?


I'd like to see some information that proves that oil ISN'T coming straight to the United States.

Really, I don't know where it's going—but my first guess is to the USA. Prove me wrong.

Darren said...

No. You prove it's coming here, especially since there's no evidence *on the planet* that it *is* coming here.

BTW, how much oil is in Bosnia? How about Haiti? or Grenada? Somalia?

I don't care why other countries don't like us. When other countries do half the good that we do in the world, when they don't do twice the bad we do, *then* I'll consider their opinions. As I learned in the army: if someone you don't respect says something bad about you, wear it as a badge of honor; if someone you respect says something bad about you, then take it to heart.

Darren said...

Libs always worry about feeeeeeeelings.

Why is the fact that some people in other countries don't like us a sign that we're doing something wrong? Most red-blooded Americans don't like the Iranian government--I don't see anyone telling Ahmedinejad that he's doing something wrong and should change his ways. The "Blame America First" crowd doesn't cut it with me, Anonymous.

Darren said...

And I failed to mention Panama in my list above. All those operations have taken place since I went to West Point in 1983.

And how much Kuwaiti oil did we take after liberating that country in 1991? How much Iraqi oil did we take then?

This argument that we're only after oil, anonymous, is specious. It's nothing but Anti-American talking points--lies, in actuality--and isn't suited to *reasoned* discourse. Think ill of your country if you want, but don't expect me to think you're a genius because you can spout some Daily Kos talking points.

Darren said...

When I read this on another blog, I thought of the "we're just making them mad at us" comment. This is the best response I've ever seen to it:
**********
Let's turn the clock back a generation or so, to the beginning of the civil rights movement. Just a quick question for you. What if the New York Times ran a headline which read: "Civil Rights Movement Said to Worsen Threat of Racism." The article tells you "Efforts by the Justice Department to end racial discrimination in the South has helped spawn a new wave of racial animosity." You read further and discover that recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan has increased since the federal government stepped up its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks.

Tell me .. .would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?
**********

allen said...

anonymous said:

It's not our job to police the world—yet Bush seems to think it is.

Really? Why isn't it our job to police the world?

It's not like any other nation has demonstrated much in the way of inclination, or qualifications, for the job. Would you prefer that the job of world policeman not be done at all? That's pretty much the alternatives as I see them, the UN being a joke as far as policing the rogue states of the world is concerned.

Despite leftie pretensions, the only nations that have reason to fear the U.S. have given us reason to make them fear us. And the analogy of policeman is quite apt. It's the bad guys who have to look over their shoulders when Officer America's walking the beat. The folks who have nothing to fear from an honest cop are pretty happy to see Officer America making his rounds.and the bad guys know to stay out of sight. I kind of like that arrangement. You want to explain what's wrong with it?