The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Two articles have appeared on newspapers by Senator Lieberman and our own columnist to the world Mark Steyn regarding the threat posed to our world by the Iranian regime. Senator Joe Lieberman understands the threat posed by the Iranian regime, as always. He writes :
The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.
Senator Lieberman, unlike many leftists, is able to understand the grave danger of not responding to Iranian regime bullying us. Mark Steyn has the same opinion as well. That, showing weakness in the face of threat posed by the mullahs will bite us back in the near future. He has a valid point.
Britain got so many things wrong during the Rushdie affair, just as America got so many things wrong during the Iranian embassy siege 10 years earlier. But it's now 2007 -- almost two decades after Iran claimed sovereignty over British subjects, almost three decades after they claimed sovereignty over U.S. territory. So what have we learned?
Let's be serious about the Iranian regime. The only language they're able to comprehend is "the language of force".
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Confronting Iran:
» Instead Of Coffee from Hyscience
Nancy Levant's Safeguard now -- assume no peace is sufficiently sobering to perk anyone up from the effects of a long weekend:... It seems that things are rapidly boiling over the Iran issue. Too many meetings, weapons sales, high-level comings and goi... [Read More]
Tracked on 2007-07-09 11:18:41 AM
It's time to turn Iran into a glass parking lot. As my bumper sticker reads:
NUKE IRAN BEFORE THEY NUKE US!
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 4:01:40 PM
It is interesting that we are fighting the Islamic world (yes all of it) with one arm tied behind our backs. That would be our left arm. What makes it so bad is that that left hand is continually also putting a knife in our backs.
On the bright side, the Islamic world has a ton of infighting too. When those people are not killing us, they get busy killing each other. Some cult that is.
Agreed on the point, we must continue the head on violent assault on these bastards. Thankfully we are strong enough, powerful enough and rich enough to win even with the hateful leftists working against us.
Hats off to the armed forces who continue to help keep our lands peaceful.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-08 4:32:02 PM
It doesn't look like I'll be able to hit Nanaimo next week. I'll be in Vic. for 2 days only. If you're able to meet me there, we can grab a coffee. If not, I can leave the 12 bumper stickers somewhere so that you can pick them up at your leisure.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 4:43:38 PM
Yanni, you're wrong about one arm tied behin your back. Even with the facade of humanitarianism clouding the reasons for our participation in Afghanistan, the majority of Canadians disappove. If you were to put the arguments on this website to Canadians, it would be surprising if you were "fighting" with more then two fingers.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-08 4:56:36 PM
I'm curious, what do you mean by "fighting with one arm tied behind our back"? I've heard people use that phrase before but never really explained the meaning.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 6:00:05 PM
If you are serious ... it simply means at a 50% disadvantage. Imagine you in a fist fight and only being able to use one arm while your opponent uses both arms.
My point is that in the West, about 50% or more of the population doesn't want to fight for our continued freedoms against the Islamic Jihad. The Left detracts by stating things like "this Jihad is our fault", "We are losing in Afghanistan", "Bush is a war criminal".
The CBC, CTV and other MSM play up the dead soldiers to the nth degree to lay the big guilt trip on us and blame those want to win this struggle for the deaths of these fine young men and women. It is a disgusting display of naivety and cowardice.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-08 6:48:40 PM
I follow what you're saying. I agree that the media has absolutely no stomach for this sort of thing. Grief sells papers and advertising, unfortunately.
I was just getting to leave the military (got too fat to jump out of airplanes) when our first four soldiers were killed, one of them a very good friend, and I watched in horror at the unnatural level of grief by the whole country. I couldn't help but think that "if this is what happens when we have 4 dead, what happens when there's 20, 30, 100?"
We are at war, and I think people just do not understand that. There's nothing pretty, heroic or noble about war, it's violent and ugly. Casualities happen and the media and the public at large who favour pullout need to grasp that.
You mentioned Bush and I think that's the problem right there. They invaded Iraq and have gone off their nut. No one, and I mean no one, wants anything to do with the current administration.
They're dicks, but what's worse is that they are incompetent and have screwed things royally and made the world a much more dangerous place because of it. And Canadians see this and think that Afghanistan will become just like Iraq.
Torture, suspension of habeas corpus, extra-judicial killings. I don't want my country to have anything to do with that. Fight smarter, not harder.
The thing about Afghanistan is that winning/losing is irrelevant. Our mission is to provide stability so the Afghans can govern. Then we can leave.
Cheney I can see being tried for war crimes, Bush is too dumb to be a criminal.
I don't disagree with you though, not completely anyways.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 7:23:07 PM
Robin wrote:And Canadians see this and think that Afghanistan will become just like Iraq.
I disagree. Most Canadians believe that we are in Afghanistan because of the war on terror. Whether they agree we should be there is something quite different. Iraq never was about the war on terror but of the neocon plan to destabilize much of the middle east. What we have now in Iraq is a civil war. Read the latest
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-08 7:32:41 PM
Did anyone consider the possibility that Iran is laying a trap for us? They WANT us to attack them in order to establish their bona fides as the undisputed leaders of the Islamic world. Any Western attack on Iran would further entrench the Mullahs, marginalizing the dissidents as unpatriotic. It would also unite Sunnis and Shi'ites worldwide in support of yet another Muslim nation being bombed/invaded by the hated infidels.
And what exactly are our war aims? Bombing selected targets would likely just strengthen the regime. Invasion, regime change and occupation? Haven't we learned anything from Afghanistan and Iraq? It's unbelievable that the neocons are pushing for another war despite the two lost causes we're already stuck with. It's like having both legs stuck in quicksand and then saying: If I just stick my arm in, then I'll be able to free myself.
The West gains nothing from invading Iran. We should support the dissidents, but in the end it's their fight, not ours. Besides, war with Iran might unleash a huge mass of refugees heading for the West. And that would be the biggest disaster of all.
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-08 7:43:14 PM
I know Iraq is a mess, but if at this point if the US was not there, Iran would be. If Iran had control of Iran Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and it's bitch Hamas ... there would be a lot of parked cars and unemployment in North America and other parts of the West.
If the economies of the West become hobbled, there will be anarchy here and a very pissed off China, India and of course Canada would not have anyone to sell to.
We are in a connected world and the wild card is the Middle East who has a mono economy ... oil. Those whacks will not use their vast fortunes to diversify and bring prosperity to their people rather, they will fund opulence for their elites and the war on terror for the religious ruling classes. It's not pretty.
There is more about Iraq than Cheney and other US monetary interests. Further, Sadam was a dangerous enemy of the West as well. He was not going to serve as a buffer against Iran much longer.
If part of the war on terror is about oil, that is valid since world economic stabilty relies on it and that is the biggest issue of all. If we were to have large powerful armed nations starved for oil to keep their economies going, I would hate to describe what wold follow.
Don't be hard on Bush, he has some doltish features, but at least he recognized the threat of Islam and started us facing up to it.
History will be kinder to him than the present populations.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-08 7:46:46 PM
It seems as if JP is the only one here who gets it.
Posted by: Guilt-Free White Man | 2007-07-08 7:52:00 PM
The mess in Iraq affects the perception of our mission in Afghanistan. The line between fighting the good fight and fighting for Amertican empire is getting blurrier by the day.
I think 'civil war' is too nice a term to describe the situation in Iraq. Now they want do the same thing in Iran. Neo-cons got some balls on them, I'll give them that. People who talk the toughest are the ones who never do the fighting, just hang out on Sunday morning talk shows and beat their chests.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 7:56:22 PM
You make some good points, but I think Iran is so hell bent on destroying Israel with a nuke that they may not be using the clever method of baiting us. Plus I am fairly sure that the attack on Iran will come from the Jews. They will be justified if Iran indeed had the ability to annihilate them with a nuke.
No nation needs to justify fighting for it's survival.
And our purpose in in Afghanistan is to do our part in NATO. That is not just the US or Canada's fight. The global community knows that it is wrong to turn a blind eye to that backward country allowing alkaida to train for global attacks such as 9-11 not to mention the Taliban's penchant for executing women for merely going to school or showing a bare ankle. Can you not agree that these points alone are enough to have us at least make the effort to stabilize that place.
Let me say it again ... execute women for going to school or showing a bare ankle!!!
We are not in Afghanistan for oil or for imperialistic reasons. No one needs that place as a trophy.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-08 7:57:33 PM
"People who talk the toughest are the ones who never do the fighting, just hang out on Sunday morning talk shows and beat their chests."
Where were you when the draft dodger Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia???
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:00:12 PM
Robin wrote: The mess in Iraq affects the perception of our mission in Afghanistan. The line between fighting the good fight and fighting for Amertican empire is getting blurrier by the day.
I'd certainly agree with you on that.
Robin wrote: Neo-cons got some balls on them, I'll give them that. People who talk the toughest are the ones who never do the fighting, just hang out on Sunday morning talk shows and beat their chests.
Someone once said of neocons that they were more likely to have seen the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-08 8:02:01 PM
"Dolt-ish features" LOL
He has done nothing to face it up. All invading Iraq did was to poke a hornet's nest with a stick.
Al Qaeda recruits people by saying that the west is going to invade the holy lands, put in puppet governments, take their oil, and bring Christianity to Mecca and force their kids to listen to Brittney Spears. What does the US do? They invade.
Perception is reality and the perception of the US in the middle east is not one of liberators.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 8:05:11 PM
He bombed Kosovo, and I was in the former Yugoslavia at the time.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 8:07:20 PM
"bring Christianity to Mecca"
Hmmm. Better than the Saudis bringing Wahabbism to the West.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:07:36 PM
"He bombed Kosovo"
Belgrade is not in Kosovo.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:10:17 PM
So, Robin, SAPN - you are both comfortable leaving the Afghans to the Taliban, then?
Posted by: jt | 2007-07-08 8:14:44 PM
ODB, I agree, the Saudi's are not our friends. They buy our friendship, but that doesn't make them allies.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 8:15:15 PM
Sure - let the Taliban destroy 2,000 year old Buddha statues. That will pave the way for The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to attain their stated goal - leveling the Sphinx and the pyramids.
(The enslavement of women has already been covered by a previous poster.)
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:20:25 PM
We have to leave eventually and trust that the Afghans can handle their own business. The Taliban are not going anywhere, can't kill them all no matter how hard you try. But the longer we're there, the more difficult it will be for us to leave.
It's like quicksand. We need to stay there not one second longer than we need to be. But there is no way that this job ends in 2009.
Establishing rule of law is going to take some time. Prepare yourselves.
Posted by: Robin | 2007-07-08 8:21:12 PM
jt wrote: So, Robin, SAPN - you are both comfortable leaving the Afghans to the Taliban, then?
Where did I say that? If the US had stayed focused on Afghanistan, where the real war on terror was being fought, rather than going off on a neocon adventure in Iraq the situation would be much different today.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-08 8:22:58 PM
Belgrade is still not in Kosovo.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:27:10 PM
Frankly, It's not our business how cruelly foreigners treat their women, minorities, etc. We (the West) went in to Afghanistan for the right reasons, to overthrow the government that sheltered the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Mission accomplished November 2001. We can't babysit these dimwits forever - at some point they have to fight their own battles. Afghanistan has always sucked and it will always suck, despite the best efforts of our brave soldiers.
I hope that Israel does attack Iran. They are the nation most threatened by the lunatic regime in Teheran. We should support them if they do attack, but the fight is theirs, not Canada's. The West should extricate itself as honorably as possible from the entire Middle East IMHO. The way this war will be won is by stopping all further Muslim immigration, not by getting bogged down in hellholes like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-08 8:40:47 PM
"It's not our business how cruelly foreigners treat their women"
Sure, if they kept it there, maybe. But they bring these evil actions with them when they immigrate to the West. This is almost a daily occurrence - be it in the UK, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc. Honour killings run rampant in the West, with the media glossing over them as if they are just another crime statistic.
"Police say brother stabbed woman to death in Crystal, Minnesota"
CRYSTAL, Minn. (AP) - A relative of the Crystal woman slain in her home is now the sole suspect in the case, police said Sunday.
21-year-old Adel Ahamed Mohamed was detained Saturday as a person of interest, but Crystal police now believe he acted alone in killing 45-year-old Rahina Mohamed, a prominent member of Minnesota's Oromo community.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:48:46 PM
And then there's this:
"Many Afghan women choosing suicide by fire"
A growing number of Afghan women are attempting to escape a life of abuse by setting themselves on fire, a study by a human rights group has found.
Whatever happened to the Left's crusade for Human Rights? It was abandoned when the Right started espousing it, that's what happened!
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 8:52:36 PM
Yes and the war continues to kill innocent Afghanis - the greater number by our friendly allies. Let's kill 'em all and then they will be saved, eh OBC.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-08 9:05:49 PM
AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS SITE THERE ARE GOOGLE ADS FOR CHEAP TEHERAN FLIGHTS, AND ETC.
Posted by: ADANACSIDEKCUF | 2007-07-08 9:21:22 PM
"Agreed on the point, we must continue the head on violent assault on these bastards. Thankfully we are strong enough, powerful enough and rich enough to win even with the hateful leftists working against us."
Who are "WE", Yanni ?
If this includes the States, I suggest you go to the news: They are broke and will never prevail in Iraq. I can say I'm more in the centre of the scale 'cause I don't wanna be part of your stupid delusions. For the moment, the West if fucked in front of Iran and N. Corea and it's in large part because blind idiots like you prefer to follow the path of oil addicts before using our heads in front of this new reality that is the wake of Islam. The West have to change its mind set but you, mon ami, are a finished old man.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-08 9:39:09 PM
you are a confused person.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-08 9:41:37 PM
Looks like you've got problems, Yanni. First, St. A., then you need to hold back and ignore me. Now you're hearing the norm in Canadian opinion from Robin and Marc has exposed you.
Time to get real and start actually thinking about the situation.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-08 10:07:09 PM
Just watched FOX NEWS - Belgrade is still not in Kosovo.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-08 10:26:59 PM
Yanni, it just gets worse. A single ally and he's lost in the Balkans.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-08 10:29:50 PM
An interesting aside from Edmonton. There is a nanotech institute at the UofA that is doing some interesting things, one of which is the development of a nanotube battery that could fuel a car over long distances and be recharged in the time it takes to stop for a cup of coffee. If that ever comes on the market much of the demand for fossil fuels will drop off the charts. While that may hurt our oil industry, what will it do to the middle east and the terrorists Saudi paymasters?
Posted by: DML | 2007-07-08 11:23:33 PM
munroe: Stop, you're giving Marilyn a bad name.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-07-08 11:26:00 PM
'night Yanni; 'night Liz....see you tomorrow.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-08 11:52:28 PM
So what do we do about people like this.
"Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.
At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2007-07-09 12:37:53 AM
There is a core fact that even big brains like Liberman and Steyn keep forgetting (or forgetting to emphasize). Diplomacy only works when there is a credible threat of force. The left needs to hear this message.
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, I remember "Stop the war" protest rallies in Rome, Paris and Victoria. I think Hussein must have believed that the rallies would prevail. (I certainly don't believe Hussein would play his hand the same way if he had a second chance.) Dissent and disunity in the west gave Hussein enough hope to hold out. Those who call themselves pacifists ensured that diplomacy would not work and war was necessary.
Today, we are in a similar position. The best option is along the lines of JP's suggestion: we should use diplomacy to force Iran to stop meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan and limit its ability to supress the internal calls for reform. But the best option isn't going to happen because the Iranian leaders don't want it.
If Iran believed in a US attack, it might be open to such talks. Unfortunately, given the tone of the current debate in the US, Iran does not fear that the US can muster the will to mount and sustain and attack. Diplomacy, therefore cannot work and the military option is the only one left.
The pacifists have made war necessary.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-07-09 3:54:49 AM
Horny (Fred): Source!
Those are shocking stories that deserve a wider audience. I hope you will forward it to a site with more fact-checking credibility. May I suggest powerline, Captain's Quarters, Hot Air or Small Dead Animals?
Posted by: pete e | 2007-07-09 3:58:31 AM
JP wrote: I hope that Israel does attack Iran.
(to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys)
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB IRAN!
Let's take a stand, bomb Iran.
Our country's got a feelin'
Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-09 8:28:45 AM
"I hope that Israel does attack Iran"
Yeah ? Well, you just have to look at the map to understand that this would be a pretty dumb move. Not as dumb as invade Irak with everything you have when the ones attacking and threatning you are in Afstan - Pakistan and anywhere but there...
Wishing that Israel attack Iran showing you have no real respect for that State. 1 + 1 = 2. Not - 2.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-09 9:25:07 AM
Anti semantic Israeli hater + American hating BDS suffer = typically boring, predicable, incredibly dense, run of the mill left wing whack job.
I was going to + global warming believers as well, but realized counting to three could be a real challenge for you left wing hacks.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-07-09 9:59:47 AM
deepblue wrote: Anti semantic
There's nothing worse than being Anti semantic
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-09 10:09:59 AM
Having coucous from the far right who fatally see someone who critisize poor strategic moves as Anti Israel & Americans...
Priceless (but nothing suprising).
Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-09 10:10:43 AM
Right, Iran is moderate!
Moderate, my cheeks!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-09 10:31:18 AM
And here's my version of the lengendary Canadian Anti-Americain >LEFT<...:
Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-09 10:48:52 AM
It amazes me that so many cling to the belief/myth that all these Islamists hate us and behave this way due to our foreign policy or the Americans being in Iraq, etc. Even if every country from the West withdrew from every Muslim area and ensured they had no citizens there, the threat would not disappear. In fact it would increase, since the Islamists would recognise it for what it is: supreme weakness.
Nor is the existence of Israel or whatever the cause, nor is poverty or economics or whatever the cause.
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear the Islamists themselves spell it out quiet clearly. This is a totalitarian and imperialist ideology whose goal (and they believe their obligation) to impose Islam (their version of course) on the whole world. I understand that the godless Left cannot grasp the idea that anyone could take their belief that seriously. We continue to loss this war because of our state of denial, not because we lack the military ability to win. Unless we, the West, regain our desire and will to survive, the Islamists will achieve their goal.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-07-09 11:19:02 AM
You are oof topic Marc!
Get back in line!
Iran Human Rights Violations.
If they will do this to their own, imagine what they will do to you!?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-09 11:44:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.