Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Was Natalee Holloway Drugged and Gang Raped? | Main | Is Iraq to become another Islamic republic? »

August 15, 2005

How Bush the world would gain from war with Iran

Topics: Iran

When I first saw the heading, "How Bush Would Gain From War With Iran" in an article in the Guardian this morning, I expected the usual anti-Bush dribble seen so often in the British press, and it was just that, anti-Bush dribble. However, although the intention of it's author, Dan Plesch, was to build a case for not attacking Iran, after reading the article I realized that the piece actually just made the case for the U.S. and the UK to attack Iran, and to do so sooner rather than later.

Here are Plesch's key reasons for President Bush to eliminate the Iranian threat (and by doing so - much of the force behind Islamic terrorism in the West):

(...) President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands.

(...) A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack.

(...) America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.

(...) A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure.

(...) A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.

(...) Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade

(...) War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.

So, to sum it up so far, we certainly want to keep all options on the table, there are ample forces in place and nearby to accomodate whatever is needed to eliminate the Iranian nuclear and military threat, civil war in Iran is more likely than not to erupt and help to dislodge the Islamic regime, and although not having conducted a perfect WOT effort, the Bush administration has certainly been far more aggressive in it's efforts to eliminate terrorism at it's source, the nations that support it, as has democratic administrations, and is more likely than the whimsy pansy liberal left - the voice of the democratic base, to so so in the future. These are all good things and great reasons to take out the Islamic terrorist-supporting regime now rather than later. We certainly don't want a Islamic terrorist regime handing out nukes to Islamic terrorists in the "field" to pass out nuclear weapons to their buddies like chocolate bars at the fair.

However, Plesch's reasoning behind the article was that we should not attack Iran but that the Bush administration had reasons to do so, thinking that President Bush thinks like the Europeans and the democrats in the U.S. - it's all about elections. Although Bush is more a statesman and less the selfish, self-centered politician represented by many of the democrats in the U.S. and the current crop of leaders in Europe, these 'little' matters didn't keep Plesh from dribbling out his peeves by laying out his rationale for not going to war, with his key points being:

(...) The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons?

(...) We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.

(...) We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack

What? These are the reasons for letting 'poor innocent Iran' to gain nuclear weaponry? Bush and Blair have done "too little, too late, when they've had to drag the liberal left kicking and screaming every millimeter along the way toward defending the West from Islamic terror? Why pick on Iran? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Islamic hardline regime supports most of the terrorism in the world, it's by far one of the two most irresponsible regimes in the world, with the other being North Korea, and that it not only openly threatens to force the world to live under Islamic law but also brags about lying it's way through the building of it's nuclear program, could it?

Yep, as I said earlier in this piece, Plesch just made the case for taking out Iran now, not later. Plesch's article is just more liberal-speak for rolling over on our backs and letting the Islamic terrorists take over the world while making non-Islamists dhimmis and subserviants to sharia law. But let's recall that Dan Plesch is the author of "The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace," about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival. I suggest that Dan should focus his opinions on beauty queens and festivals, and leave the matters of when, where, and why to go to war up to those of us that are much better informed about Iran's involvement in terrorism and the Islamic agenda to make Dan and the rest of us subserviant dhimmis to Islamic law. Dan needs to know that should the Iranian agenda prevail, there will be no more beauty queens for Dan to write about, and he certainly won't be able to comment on them, unless the queens are men. That may suit Dan, but I would rather the queens be women.(...)

Posted by Richard at August 15, 2005 7:46 AM



Articles Related to Iran: