Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Iraq - Like Every Other American War | Main | I wonder if they will thank me? »

Thursday, April 24, 2008

And you think Harper's gone soft?

I can understand how so many right-wing Canadians are miffed at the leftward drift of this government.  We don't have that problem down here in the good ol' US of A - no worries about our President throwing in the towel to an outlaw regime that was caught just last year trying to help Bashar Assad become a nuclear power.

Oh, wait . . .

. . . never mind.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 24, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And you think Harper's gone soft?:


... Because that dumb-ass neo-conservative approach to the international has been so successful. Why don't you guys try to adopt policies that have a chance of working rather than policies which make you sound tough but are totally ineffectual?

I dunno. Restore confidence that the US actually has some idea it knows what it is doing. Give the world the American leadership it so sorely needs.

Naah. Stuff that works is for pussies.

Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2008-04-24 12:04:38 PM


Stuff that works?

Such as?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-24 12:08:39 PM

The fight between Neo-Cons and their big gov't brothers- the left - really cracks me up. Clinton bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and it was a neccesary thing done by a "caring" teddy bear. Bush bombs them and he's a war monger.

If a rabid lefty hates Bush he is an unwitting hypocrit. Bush is doing the same things as the left with a different spin.

The fact is that both idiot movements want to control the world. One by naked aggression - both at home and abroad - lies and total gov't. The other by using lies, aggression and total government. They are both the same but have different labels. It's time to argue small vs big gov't rather than left vs right.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 12:42:04 PM



North Korea

Under the Bushies these problems all grew worse than, say, they were trending under Clinton.

I'm no fan of Clinton's foreign policy, but at least it was somewhat results-driven, not entirely driven by domestic political concerns, for example. In IR, it's called realism.

Look especially at North Korea: a hard, intractable problem.

Clinton had a pragmatic approach that was, though flawed, showing results. What the Clintonites did was figure out a way to exert leverage, admittingly difficult over a hermit regime.

The Bushies opted not to pursue Clinton’s approach and ended up with a fully nuclear North Korea that, importantly, they had no leverage over.

I’m sure Bush fuming how he loathed Kim Jong Ill was emotionally satisfying for his neo-conservative cheerleaders, but it achieved nothing positive for the United States.

Sort of like cutting off Hamas and isolating Gaza. It’s emotionally satisfying, I’ll admit that, but achieves the opposite, in this case a militantly anti-western terrorist group solidifying its control over Gaza and, through a lack of other options, pulling Gaza’s population toward its hideous worldview.

Oh, wait … Canada’s Conservative government first cut off Gaza. I think I remember Harper bragging the Bushies were following our know-nothing, backward lead.

Should we discuss how invading Iraq has made the serious problem of Islamic-inspired terrorism worse? As most people who actually knew something about the region and the problem predicted before the invasion.

Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2008-04-24 12:52:29 PM


Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Piss Christ | 2008-04-24 1:20:12 PM

"Clinton had a pragmatic approach that was, though flawed, showing results."

If you call turning a blind eye to the fact radical Islam had already declared war on the US, and ignoring the attacks and deaths of service people and civilians without any reprisal pragmatic, then I guess your right.

In fact more service people were killed in Clintons "non war" years in power than have been killed under Bushes take the fight to the enemy years.

Bill didn't mind bombing a few folk once it was found out he was getting blowjobs in oral office to get him off the front page.

But we all know what terror warriors those Clintons are, as long as its Americans getting killed, well what the hell.

I know you leftie whacko freaks think they have it coming anyway and don't want to bothered by facts, so I won't assault you with them.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-24 1:33:16 PM

FEB: Right, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan created more enemies just like bombing them from afar did. No essential difference.

N Korea was building the bomb while Bush/Clinton slept. The difference is only in the rhetoric. The end results are the same.

Thanks for enforcing my point.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 1:34:16 PM

Look, D.J. - what exactly do you want to do about North Korea? This has been an impossible problem from the day that Bush took office.

We don't know when North Korea got nukes. They were nearing them, though, in 1994. Given that they seem to have never stopped pursuing them - and that we know that they had them by 2002 - it seems likely that they either had them (or, at any rate, it was impossible to make a determination that they didn't) by the time Bush took office in 2001.

Once a nation has nukes, a red line is crossed. This is why it's so important that we attack Iran now and destroy their nuclear sites.

Because, once a nation has nukes, a limited or conventional military engagement becomes impossible. One missed target in a conventional engagement of a nuclear power - even one with only a handful of weapons - could mean millions of dead people.

Indeed, the problem is made even worse because of the region of the world that the DPRK is in. I don't know how many people would be killed in, say, a 100KT hit on Tokyo or Seoul but, given the population density in that part of the world, it would probably be an order of magnitude higher than those who would be killed in an attack on a Western city (million+ versus in the hundred thousand range, I would guess).

Thus, the only way to fight North Korea - at this point in time - would be to knock the whole country flat with nuclear weapons. We've want to hit every single possibe launch or storage site with nukes, and we'd have to do it more or less simutaniously.

That task, I need not add, would be made even harder by the moronic nuclear weapons disarmament treaties of recent years. Fifteen years ago, a single Ohio-class Submarine, launching depressed trajectory missiles, might have been enough to take out North Korea (with aircraft dropping ground-penetrating nukes on hardened targets and a follow-on second strike). Now, it'd take the whole fleet.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 1:37:41 PM

"N Korea was building the bomb while Bush/Clinton slept"

Actually they were building the bomb with the technology Clinton gave them, under the condition they didn't build weapons with it.

This is what happens when you panty wearing lefties try negotiating with truly evil men and believe what they say.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-24 1:41:09 PM

Actually, deepblue, like most things that are wrong with the world, this is mostly Jimmy Carter's fault. Clinton was preparing for action against North Korea when Carter went over there, announced his "deal" and undercut him.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 1:55:02 PM

Yoshida the Brave wrote >>Once a nation has nukes, a red line is crossed. This is why it's so important that we attack Iran now and destroy their nuclear sites.<<

LOL! Bush is going to attack Iran? He can try, but, I doubt he is going to.

Iran is the big winner from the Iraq War! Bush has transformed Iran into a regional superpower. Indeed, no one has done more to make Greater Iran a reality than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld, Rice, Gen Peter Pace, George Tennant, Wolfowitz, Perle and the hangers-on! LOL! Iran stands triumphant! Sooner or later, they were going to get Saddam, and get him they did!

Who is going to attack Iran? Israel? The USA? NATO? Hillary Clinton? LOL! Sure.

150,000 sitting duck GIs and the mercenaries in Iraq are all the hostages Iran needs to keep Bush and Co. in check. Attack Iran and Bush would have to go on air and explain losing over 150,000 Americans in action, dead, missing and wounded within 24 hours of an American-Iranian war. No American president would survive such casualties! Nor could American prestige withstand such a hit, no matter what happens after, it would signal the end of America as a superpower, more even than the defeat in Iraq has already diminished America! LOL! One word from Iranian in Iraq Ali al-Sistani, and all of Iraq would rise against America, including the puppet government installed by America!!! LOL! Nice huh? Iran has Bush where they want him--in a box with no way out! The Europeans know, the Russians and Chinese know it, everyone knows it except the clowns here! Aint no one enlisting for an Iran War!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:00:02 PM

DB: Please stop fantasizing about men in panties. We shouldn't negotiate with the head thug. We should be armed to the teeth and mind our own business and let China/Russia worry about their neighbors.

Adam: You gotta be shitting me. War with Iran? Hmm, I wonder what China/Russia would do about protecting "their" oilfields. You want more Iraq/Afghanistan? Are you ready to put on a uniform?

"I find war detestable, but those who praise it without participation in it, even moreso."
Romain Rolland 1866-1944

Put your ass where your mouth is Adam, or put your panties on and sell Tupperware.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 2:03:50 PM

Iran would be a lot better off getting trounced by America than being rescued by China. I can think of a couple of examples.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:06:05 PM

Go ahead dp: We're waiting...

I'm wondering why someone would be thankful for being trounced.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 2:29:21 PM

I've said before, and I'll say it again, abc - if the Secretary of Defense exercises the authority that he's been given and allows foreign enlistment into the U.S. Armed Forces in exchange for a Green Card, I'll take them up on the offer. In the meantime, alas, there doesn't seem to be much chance I'll get to the front in Iraq - or Iran.

It's quite obvious when Iran's going to happen. Sometime between noon on November 5th and noon on January 20th. Either way. If the Democrats can't win, we can't trust that they won't sell out America to the Iranians, so we'll have to bomb them. If McCain wins, having Bush do it allows him to play good-cop/bad-cop.

What will Russia and China do? Not a damned thing. Indeed, if we do this right - rather than listening to people like Colin Powell and Tony Blair as we foolishly did in 2002-2003 - the U.S. won't tell anyone what they're going to do until it's done.

It's easy enough. Wait until, say, 2 in the afternoon on a Wednesday and then, without any warning, threats, or build-up, fire a thousand cruise missiles and launch five hundred aircraft at Iran. Make sure that the nuclear sites are first on the list.

Hell, use the B-2's and F-22's to open the strike. The first that Iranian scientists and the like will know about the strike is when they're burned to death or blown apart.

After all, the real targets of any such strike would, on top the facilities, be the human talent. Kill a couple hundred of their top scientists and engineers, and they'll be set back a decade or more.

A bolt from the blue. It's very possible.

If I was a dictator, I'd use a few dozen nuclear weapons on Iran in order to make it stick - but it's conventionally possible.

Of course, if I was a dictator the first phase of the War on Terrorism would have been over by 9AM on September 12th.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 2:33:56 PM

I said "better off", not "thankful".

I guess if you need examples, you probably won't see the point anyway.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:37:21 PM

LOL! The minute the first missile strikes Iran, all dissension will cease. All opponents of the administration of Ahmedinejad will go silent. Internally, Iran will unite. Iranians will fight fiercely to defend their country from any invader. They will be led by capable battle-hardened commanders and by motivated, disciplined troops, skilled in both conventional, unconventional and guerilla warfare. Iranians are not like the soft, fun-loving docile Iraqis!

Of course Bush knows all this already. Why do you think he has hesistated? Why do you think General Fallon chose to resign rather than be a part of any aggression against Iran? Fallon knows. Former Gen Abizaid knows. Rumsfeld and Powell know. War with Iran would be the last war America fights as a superpower. NATO will not join in any Iranian campaign, nor will any old EU member nation--perhaps some of the newer clown nations from the former East Bloc might be dumb enough to consider it.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:37:53 PM

Yoshida misrepresents the facts, again: >> I've said before, and I'll say it again, abc - if the Secretary of Defense exercises the authority that he's been given and allows foreign enlistment into the U.S. Armed Forces in exchange for a Green Card, I'll take them up on the offer. <<

America DOES give foreigners the right to enlist and get a green card right now! LOL! Excuses excuses excuses!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:40:27 PM

"Of course, if I was a dictator the first phase of the War on Terrorism would have been over by 9AM on September 12th."

That sentiment was shared by all but a few cab drivers and foreign students (in Alberta, at least) until around noon Sept. 12. Too bad the opportunity was missed.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:43:19 PM

LOL! Yoshida is brave because he is not in Iraq or Bahrain or overseas where the mobs will burn down US embassies, torch US businesses, attack US journalists, businesspeople, students, diplomats, soldiers, citizens. As the first missiles strike Iran, Sistani will give the call to Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki that the time to send America a message had arrived. Those joint US-Iraqi patrols and training missions will turn into Custards last stand at Little Big Horn. Bahraini Shia will rise and attack the US naval base, and the Gulf will become a war zone everywhere for American troops and mercenaries. From Malaysia to Indonesia to India to Pakistan to Mindanao to Tanzania to Bosnia to Morrocco, American assets and people will be on the run.

Of course this does not matter to Yoshida--he will be safely sitting in front of his tv dressed in his toy camo outfit and armed with his toy M16, swilling down beer and chips and waiting for the pizza delivery to arrive! Alice in Wonderland world of Yoshida. LOL! Bush knows, even if Yoshida doesn't.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:48:38 PM


America cannot tolerate democracy coming to Muslim lands, because America needs dictators to maintain American hegemony and control. The world knows this fact, even if the sheep here don't.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 2:51:47 PM

ROGER - I don't normally bother to address your blather, but I will engage you on exactly two points.

First of all - let the bastards units or whatever. It won't do any good. I'm not proposing that we invade Iran. I'm proposing that we knock flat their nuclear facilities are a couple of hundred other targets of opportunity then take off. Let them rage impotently all they want. Iran doesn't have the capability to mount conventional military operations on any scale - they would get their asses kicked if they tried. And, we we've seen in Basra, the Iraqis are sick as hell of Iran in any case.

Hell, Iran doesn't even really have an economic response. After all, oil is a fungible commodity. They have to let their oil into the global market somewhere, or they'll all starve in the dark.

Yeah, they can mount terrorist attacks - but doing so will simply provide a causus belli for further action against Iran.

Now, dp - as I've said many times, that was the great lost opportunity post-9-11. Bush's mistake was to take what the Democrats, Europeans, moderate Republicans, and so forth said after September 11th in good faith and, based upon that, to try and work with them - and therefore move slowly.

As Nathan Bedford Forrest said, the person in war wins who gets their firstest with the mostest. If I had been President after September 11th, I really would have done all the things that the liberals accuse Bush of doing.

Indeed, after the initial strikes (regardless of the effect, I'd have made sure that there were massive explosions for television cameras to film that night) I'd have gone on TV - that very day - and repeated over and over and over again the phrases "World War Three" and "Third World War." The well-established procedure in the English-speaking world has been that it's regarded are more or less ok to be against any limited war, but that it's ok to throw people in jail for opposing any exisential or unlimited war (the Napoleonic wars, the civil war, the world wars).

After all - remember that day? The networks and papers would have gone with it. The headline on every single newspaper in the world the next day would have been "World War Three!" or something to that effect.

Afterwards, I'd have then asked for the draft and war bonds - not so much out of material need, but out of a desire to create an atmosphere of war. Moreover, I'd have made it a universal levy, rather than selective service.

Then, citing security concerns, I'd have demanded that the Congress pass a modern-day version of the Senatus consultum ultimum and then adjourn for an unspecified length of time.

Finally, once those were in order - I'd have demanded the unconditional surrender of all of the governments tied to the attacks in one way or another, or otherwise known to be hostile to the United States.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 2:56:19 PM

"Iranians are not like the soft, fun-loving docile Iraqis!"

So that was just a friendly tussle they had in the 80's? Iran was pulling it's punches?

"Custards last stand at Little Big Horn."

Can't stop wondering where your girlfriend spent the night? Don't worry, there'll be some left over for you roger.

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-24 2:57:27 PM

Second, point regarding ROGER - the U.S. Military does not allow enlistment without a Green Card. It allows people who are not citizens, but who are legal residents, to enlist.

After all, if they did is the other way - there'd be plenty of illegal aliens who would volunteer.

Now, as to your point with regard to Iraq/Iran - the volitility of the "Islamic street" has been consistently over-estimated by the left. The only serious riots which will occur if we attack Iran are among liberals here in the West.

The Iraqis know that the Iranians have been murdering them. They fought a decade-long war against eachother. They're not going to rise up.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 2:58:59 PM

Yoshida: You are hilarious and a strategic joker. Do you have any experience whatsoever with blowback or the logistics of a military build up? You'd have to study military operations for years just to be an amateur.

It was noted at the end of the Arab/Israeli 6 day war in 1967 that the further the arab countries were from Israel, the more they wanted the fight to go on.

Yoshida has the "I'm too comfortable to die" syndrome. He also has the "I don't have a clue about the military" syndrome and the "What channel is the war on" syndrome.

All this means that he isn't able to say anything of worthy of serious thought.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 3:04:21 PM

Yoshida, you can enlist right now in the US military! Stop trying to lie your way out of enlisting! LOL! Hypocritical coward!

As for the Muslim world, how much time have you spent in a Muslim country or in any part of the Muslim world? Two minutes? LOL!

Why has Bush not already attacked Iran?

You seem to be under the illusion that someone, anyone, can attack Iran with impunity. Not so. Iranians have been empowered by the American invasion of Iraq and the dismantling of the Iraqi bulwark against Iran. Iran's allies are now in charge in Iraq. SCIRI, Sadr and everyone else in Iraq on the Shi' side are all indebted to Iran and lived for over a decade in Iran and took Iranian money and training. Ali al-Sistani is an Iranian and the most influential voice in Iraq. America's over 150,000 troops in Iraq plus the mercenaries are sitting ducks waiting for retaliation for any American or Israeli adventurism in Iran. You are not there, so you can talk big. But for those poor Americans on the ground in Iraq, they are done if Iran is attacked. Bush knows this. Bush also knows that Iran has a range of means to retaliate, not the least of which is calling in the favours from the Afghani Shi fighters who are sitting around doing nothing right now! LOL! You have no idea. Bahrain is in an uneasy calm--home to the US fifth fleet, in a Sunni dictatorship over the Shi' majority! LOL!

Yoshida, enlist today, by next week you can be in Iraq and find out what fear is. If you lose your nuts over there, you can take comfort in knowing that Cheney and Bush will appreciate your sacrifice.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 3:13:42 PM

There is no perfect way to engage North Korea, diplomatically or military. What the Clintonites did was devise a way of creating leverage.

Despite the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula carried in 1994 when the North Koreans looked set to violate the 1985 non-proliferation agreement they had signed and indicated they were removing the fuel rods from their nuclear reactor and expel the inspectors who had been guarding the rods, Clinton responded by pushing the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions.

He also ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans to send 50,000 additional troops to South Korea—bolstering the 37,000 already there—along with more than 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and several battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defence missiles. Another thing he did was send in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters for the influx of troops and gear.

At the same time Clinton set up third party negotiations using none other than Jimmy Carter. The result was the Agreed Framework.

Part of which agreed the North Koreans would be sent light-water reactors, whose nuclear fuel would be exported to a third country for recycling. This is the same thing Bush and Putin recently proposed Iran do with its nuclear fuel. The accord fell apart because the U.S.-led consortium never provided the light-water reactors. For one thing, Congress never authorized the money.

Hmmm … So much for the claims here that North Korea got the bomb through Clinton-supplied technology.

When Clinton left office, officials saw signs that North Korea may have been attempting to create a clandestine uranium enrichment program, but nothing was definitive. We now know that about 1999, North Korea did indeed start on a second nuclear route involving uranium. Not the fuel covered in the Agreed Framework.

George Bush, after becoming president criticized Clinton's Agreed Framework as a case of appeasement of North Korean nuclear blackmail, denounced North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil", announced that he loathed Kim Jong Il, and refused to support the "Sunshine Policy of President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea to achieve the peaceful resolution of problems with North Korea.

When the Bush administration decided it had conclusive proof of that enrichment it confronted North Korea, terminating promised fuel oil deliveries promised under the Agreed Framework.

North Korea evicted the inspectors, restarted the reactor and retrieved weapons-grade plutonium from 8,000 fuel rods that had been kept in a cooling pond.

The Bush administration didn't take military action, didn't call for sanctions, nor did it try diplomacy. Nothing. All bluff. Totally useless. Now they are back to negotiating with the North Koreans, but with a much weaker hand. Good work. If it weren’t for Iraq, North Korea would represent the current Administration’s biggest failure.

The point is: the Clintonites were working toward a solution, however imperfect. They got the North Koreans involved in a process, keeping North Korean nuclear ambitions bottled up for eight years.

Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2008-04-24 3:18:26 PM

Chunky Monkey.

As a soon-to-be grade four graduate, I feel compelled to question your strategic logic, not to insult logic by equating it with your dribbles.

Don’t you think the South Koreans might mind the nuclear levelling of the northern half of the Korean Peninsula? That might affect their quality of life a bit, no? You know … because nuclear weapons aren’t like other weapons, they irradiate their targets, the irradiation floats away, contaminating other places … people in the vicinity, like South Koreans, the Chinese, the Japanese, have deformed babies, suffer horribly …

There is also the question of the 20,000 artillery tubes the North Koreans are believed to have aimed at Seoul, effectively transforming that city into a 20 million large kill-box. This fact effectively negates the possibility of conducting military operations against North Korea. Which is why we have had historically so little leverage over North Korea, and why nobody every seriously considered militarily attacking it. Why you have no idea about what you’re writing.

In the real world people are forced to deal with problems, not just wish them away with neo-conservative pixie dust.

Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 2008-04-24 3:19:04 PM

Yoshida wouldn't have any balls, but he would gain some credibility and learn something about military operations. Then his silly statements might be worthy of a read.

Have a nice trip Private Yoshida

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 3:19:44 PM

FEB: You just illustrated my earlier point. How was N Korea bottled up?

They weren't. They persued nuc's at full speed. So, Bush/Clinton had an equal effect on Kim Il Jong - none.

Same effect, different blather. Don't be a sucker. They're both the same.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 3:23:46 PM

Ah, the Iraq-Iran War. On whose side was Yoshida, Rumsfeld, the USA, the Soviets, China, the EU? LOL! Recall, the American installed dictator, the Shah, was overthrown in 1979. Within months, America encouraged their lackey, Saddam, to launch an invasion of Iran to destabilize the new regime. The departing loyalists to the Shah had destroyed all the military inventory lists, hardcopies and computer inventory systems, sabotaged military equipment and destroyed the war readiness of Iran to meet the Saddam's challenge to Iranian sovereignty. The senior officer corps had fled Iran, leaving a vaccuum. The world thought they could push Iran around, by using Saddam as a proxy invader.

America sent Saddam money, weapons, satellite pics of troop movements and installations, supplied other intelligence, also chemical and biological weapons, and gave Saddam support while he attacked Iranian civilians with chemical weapons and bombed and fired missiles at large Iranian cities, terrifying civilians. Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand in the wake of chemical attacks on Iranians and Iraqi Kurds! The Europeans, especially the French, sent weapons and provided training for Saddams troops. The Arabs, including the Kuwaitis and Egyptians, backed Saddam. There were arms embargoes against Iran while everything was shipped to Saddam. Iran against the world, and Iran pushed Saddam back and were poised to invade when more help was rushed to Saddam by the west! ... In the end, Iran stands triumphant and Saddam was hung in a public spectacle. Iranian allies rule Iraq! LOL! Iran has won big. Bush has paid for Iranian victory! Nothing and no one can now roll back Iranian victory! And Bush is responsible for making Iranian victory complete! LOL! Great huh.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 3:25:33 PM

ROGER, what you're saying simply is not true. Period.



At the moment, you have to hold a Green Card in order to join - with joining (with a Green Card) - providing an expedited path to citizenship. Proposals to allow people to enlist directly while abroad are under discussion.

More than that, you're plainly a fool, sitting around barfing up leftist talking points. Sadr is a spent force. What he and his men do is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. As for hte rest - they don't have any particular desire to die. Your idea that Iraqis are going to rise up in defense of an Iranian regime which has been murdering and oppressing them is clinically delusional.

Now, abc - I would say, based upon your statements, that you're the one between us who is absolutely without a clue. I have a very good idea of the capabilites of the U.S. military. I don't claim any particular on-the-ground or tactical expertise but, in the matters we are discussing, the question is simply the massive application of lethal firepower.

The beauty of an operation, like the one I advocate, is that it could be conducted simply through the augmentation of naval forces already in-theatre combined with air power launched directly from the United States.

Use a change-of-station moment to concentrate, say, three Carrier Strike Groups in range of Iran. Add to their missiles and planes bombers launched directly from te United States and such an operation becomes very practical and possible.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:26:12 PM

Hey, Budda - can you read? My point is along your lines - any military engagement of the North Koreans is impractical for those very reasons. While I'd be perfectly content to drop the bomb (or, more like several hundred of them) on the DPRK, I doubt if anyone else would be. Thus, we're left with something like the Bush polcy.

One of the greatest blown opportunities in the history of the world was the failure of the United States to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War. Today, we're more or less stuck with that legacy.

Personally, I'd settle Asia by giving the South Koreans, the Japanese (and, in a perfect world, the Taiwanese) nuclear weapons and leaving them to sort out that part of the world. They're all big, rich nations. Let North Korea be their problem.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:31:28 PM

And, of course, obviously I WANT to join the U.S. Armed Forces and earn citizenship in that way. It would be the quickest, the cleanest, and the best path for an immigrant to take into running for office in the United States.

What better retort to any questions of nationality or origin that might come up down the road?

After all, there's a rather long history of people being born in the smaller brothers of very large nations rising to hold great power. Beyond the most obvious and odious examples, of course.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:35:02 PM

YOSHIDA IS LOOKING FOR EXCUSES NOT TO ENLIST! If Yoshida was so eager to see combat, why is he not in the frontline in Afghanistan? Yoshida has a million excuses why he cannot enlist just right now, or next year, or next decade, but sometime after that he will be ready! LOL! Yoshida, they need sandbags in Afghanistan! Who knows, if they drop bombs on Iran, you might even see combat against Iranian fighters! LOL! Since Bush drove out the deadly Iranian enemies in Afghanistan, the Taliban, with whom Iranians had vicious fought vicious battles, Iran has consolidated a solid beach head in Afghan politics too! LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 3:44:18 PM

ROGER - are you Iranian, or perhaps an Iranian agent of some sort? The world wonders.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:45:54 PM

Yoshida dreams of holding great power and thinks that a military career prepares one for politics in a democracy! LOL! Then Yoshida refers to the Austrian corporal rising to power in Germany!!!! LOL!!! Yoshida, why not move to Japan and restart to Empire of the Sun? LOL! Japanese saw the real thing and would laugh at some little boy like you playing at being a great warrior! You would have wet your pants at Iwo Jima!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 3:47:38 PM

That's great news, Adam. You serve in a war, then get citizenship in your neighbor's country, become leader and start a world war of anihilation.

Any idiot could say "Nuc everything and there'll be peace," Adam. The trick is to keep murderers and idiots AWAY from the button, not to push the button first...whew.

Let me tell you about a little Austrian who went to WW I, got citizenship in Germany, took power and tried to take over the world. His name was Hitler. You'd like him. You both share the same game plan and unintelligent, naive views.

Your Nuc everthing plan is the same as every other Stalinist out there. It is based on nothing resembling rationality.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 3:49:59 PM

LOL! Me a Shi'? LOL! Compared to Yoshida, I am an expert on Iran and the world! No one wants to arouse Iranian militarism, not the Kuwaitis, nor the Saudis nor anyone else in the region. Every confrontation between America and Iran since the 1950s has seen Iran get stronger and America get weaker. In the 1950s, America overthrew an elected government of Iran and replaced it with the Shah, a dictator. Since then, Iranians know who the enemy is and how their democracy was ruined by American aggression. Everyone in the world knows that, except for idiots like Yoshida, an American sycophant.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 3:53:04 PM

There are more examples than that of the odious Austrian Corporal - or of the angry Georgian.

In particlar, I was thinking of a particular Corsican. Or, for that matter, of Alexander Hamilton. Or, further back, of Alexander the Great - though I share more in common with the previous two.

The more general point is that military service is a good way of closing off questions about one's origins. Service of any kind, I should say.

Now, of course, active service could be even more useful. Look at the example of the next President or, further back, of other idols of mine - such as Churchill and TR.

In any case, the goal isn't to "nuke everything and bring peace." The goal is to create a situation which compels the enemy to yield. I've described in the past how I believe that military command of space is the key to doing that. Seize control of the area surrounding the Earth, deploy weapons platforms with nuclear and kinetic energy weapons into orbit, and you will have command of the Earth.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:55:15 PM

Hey, there's nothing wrong with being an American sycophant as long as you pick the right American.
I agree that the current candidates for leadership are nothing to look up to, but we also have nothing in Canada. Do you want a coward militarist or a coward socialist? Life is the same under either.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 3:56:48 PM

Iran's "elected" leader was pro-Soviet and, therefore, deserved exactly what he got.

More to the point, the real breaking point in the US-Iranian relationship was when that Goddamned fool Carter failed to back the Shah to the hilt.

The biggest factor leading to tragedy in American foreign policy over the last few decades has been the lack of will.

Bush should have overuled Blair and Powell and gone to war with Iraq in the Spring of 2002, instead of starting up the stupid "inspection" process.

Bush also should have put some spine into the guys who attempted the Venezulean coup in 2002. If they'd have any sense at all, the first thing they would have done on arresting Chavez wuuld have been to shoot him in the head.

Clinton should have killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, and worried about the legalities later.

Bush Sr. should have pushed onto Baghdad in 1991.

Carter should have backed the Shah and then, if they failed, should have attacked the new regime when it took Americans as hostages.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 3:59:24 PM

Humility is so becoming a quality! LOL. Yoshida places himself in the same league as Napoleon, Alexander Hamilton, Alexander the Great, Churchill and Teddy Rooseveld! Yoshida is a humble soul! LOL!

The nuthouse if full of delusional idiots who think they are Napoleon or Alexander the Great. Yoshida is a great person in our midst. Now if only he can figure out how to enlist! LOL! Small beginnings start with small steps.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 4:00:32 PM

Oh, abc - I believe that John McCain is a genuinely great man. I believe in him more than any other politician who has been active during my lifetime.

Yes, he's wrong about a lot of things. But people who believe in small government (including myself) have it all wrong when they damn him for it. The way to fight the forces of socialism isn't to expend the energy of the opposition on fighting futile battles which often help elect people worse for the cause - it would be to enact a sort of broken windows theory of libertarianism, concentrating forces against small and defeatable manifestations of soft totalitarianism.

Look at how things worked for the New Left. One half of them - people like Bill Ayers - are still out there, years after year, agitating for 'revolution' while, meanwhile, most of their goals have been enacted - despite the fact that ordinary people oppose them - from the inside.

You want liberty? Then don't start with the Presidency. Turn the forces of liberty on some issue where you can bring about a concentration of forces and win.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 4:03:41 PM

So, according to Yoshida, democratic governments that anger America ought to be overthrown! LOL! There is no evidence whatever that Saddegh Mossadegh, a nationalist, was anything other than an Iranian patriot and nationalist. LOL! His real crime? Trying to take control of Iranian oil.

Iranians remember who destroyed their democracy. No amount of argument about democracy can explain the hypocrisy of overthrowing a democratic Iranian government and installing a puppet dictator! Yoshida might understand such logic, but Iranians are intelligent and not stupid like Yoshida.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 4:05:51 PM

Yoshida believes that voters in a democracy do not have the right to choose their own government. No, Yoshida thinks that overthrowing democratically elected governments is necessary because voters cannot be trusted to vote correctly!!! Yoshida believes in "freedom". LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 4:08:42 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Is there a reason why I should care what Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, think about anything in the world?

It's very simple. They do what they are told, or we should blow them to hell. That's the way the world works. We don't all get to hold hands and sing together in the sunshine. Either you're on the top or you're on the bottom, but there's no in between.

You may well be content being a bottom, "ROGER", but I don't think that goes for the rest of us.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-04-24 4:10:50 PM

Adam: Now you're just being a plain old rube. McCain IS Clinton/Obama. Remember, different rhetoric, same practice.

The answer is to be principled and not to vote for a lesser evil. And for chrisakes don't become Stalin to destroy a Stalin!!!!

I think you need to take a step back and ask yourself if a nuclear attack is wrong. If it is, don't promote the idea. If it isn't let the N Koreans launch.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-24 4:11:47 PM

YOSHIDA BELIEVES THAT THE BEST POLICY IS TO PROP UP DICTATORS! LOL! And I thought that Bush overthrew Saddam to bring democracy? And that NATO wants to bring democracy to Afghans?

Maybe that's why Yoshida does not want to enlist? He does not want to fight for democracy! He wants to fight for dictatorship! LOL! Yoshida is a traitor to Canada and an enemy of democracy everywhere. Yoshida wants to be a military dictator in America! LOL! No kidding!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 4:12:07 PM

Adam Yoshida, American political wannabe, writes the following: >>Blah, blah, blah. Is there a reason why I should care what Iranians, or anyone else for that matter, think about anything in the world?

It's very simple. They do what they are told, or we should blow them to hell<<

Well, there you have it folks! Now you know why Yoshida is scared to enlist! Yoshida would walk into Iraq and Afghanistan, unzip his pants and p*s on the floor of the local's homes, mosques, parliament, and say I am your lord and master. You are here to serve me. My uniform and gun is the law here. He is the type that stalks and rapes 14 year old Iraqi girls and murders their families and thinks he can get away with it, because he is from N America! Winning hearts and minds is not something Yoshida understands. That is why America is losing the war. Yoshida would not last long in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the enemy does not get him, he would end up being court marshalled by his own side! He is a war criminal waiting to commit crimes!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-24 4:17:38 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.