Comments on: Iran Risks Getting the Dreaded Strongly Worded Letter

By: Asian

Asian — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:54:00 +0000

Thank the good Lord for George Bush and his leadership. We now have disarmed Libya, Syria is restrained within their borders and now face the breath of freedom reaching their people. Afganistan has American troops to the north of Iran, Iraq has American troops to the west of Iran. Pakistan continues to hunt and kill Al Queda. The election will sweep an even greater thirst for freedom with Iran and the current Adolf Hitler running Iran will fall before they ever assemble a nuclear weapon. Let’s just hope Israel can be held at bay until the free Iranians inside Iran can take their country back from the haters and jihadest bent on igniting a world war.

By: Bachbone

Bachbone — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:14:00 +0000

This UN ‘persuasion’ sounds like the current version of the late Ann Landers’ well known “wrist slap with a wet noodle.”

By: Bob O'Malley

Bob O'Malley — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:00 +0000

When I said our attention was diverted from North Korea and Iran, I was not calling for an invasion of those two countries (but now that you mention it…) Seriously, it seems as though very little attention is given to the threat North Korea and Iran pose to South Korea and Israel respectively. I hope we don’t wait for legal justification before we deal with these threats. As for Iraq, I firmly believe the war will have long-term benefits (regional stability) but let’s be honest. After the first Gulf War, Iraq was not a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. That’s not hindsight; we knew it then, we know it now. I’m not suggesting a retreat. We’re there now, so let’s finish the job. But we should pay more attention to North Korea and Iran.

By: Talkin Horse

Talkin Horse — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:37:00 +0000

The comment above that Iraq was a mistake and Iran or North Korea were more appropriate targets makes no sense. First of all, this is said in hindsight: We now know more about Iraq’s WMD status than we did prior to going in, at which point everyone (including France) believed Iraq possessed more than we’ve found. Second, in spite of the opposition we had in Iraq from the usual suspects, we had a lot of external support that made the war much more practical. We had a strong legal argument based upon UN resolutions and the earlier Gulf War armistice, and we had allies, and in particular we had a staging area in Kuwait. As much as the North Koreans and Iranians may deserve an invasion, we can’t trot out a similar legal justification, and it would be exeedingly difficult to get any logistical support. North Korea is bordered by South Korea and China, so we’d be risking direct military conflict with China, and South Korea would probably not go along with a build-up in anticipation of war. Similar situation in Iran. We could manage these things if we had to, but they would be vastly more difficult than what we’ve done in Iraq. So you can reasonably argue that, given hindsight and perfect access to all battlefields, Iraq shouldn’t have been our first target. But in the real world, it was Iraq or it was nothing. Between those options, Bush chose Iraq.

By: tammynut

tammynut — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:26:00 +0000

"Newsflash for the diplomats in suits:[edited]"

Hey, you had it right the first time. I love tough talk from the Tammy. Almost as much as I love to hear you laugh.

By: Bob O'Malley

Bob O'Malley — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:08:00 +0000

This is why the war in Iraq just might be a big mistake. While a free Iraq will provide for Middle East stability in the long-term, Iran poses a more immediate threat to our national security. And North Korea is even more dangerous. Yet our attention has been diverted from these two enemies.