Ahmanutjob must be laughing himself silly right now. As the political leader of a country that is hell bent on developing nuclear weapons, has been and is actively engaged in spreading Muslim terrorism, and wants the world to be part of Sharia law, he must love that so, so many on the Left, and some on the right, are doing all the can to take the threat of war off the table completely. Witness the latest preemptive surrender piece
The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating
It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again – this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country’s president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration’s neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent – and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.
It certainly was a catastrophe to free 25 million people from the violence inherent in the Iraqi system, eh? And that we are fighing Islamic terrorists on the field of our choice. But, from a liberal point of view, this is the first war that mistakes were made, and they are so invested in defeat that they will say anything. Plus, they have this notion that everything can be solved with a bottle of diet coke and a song. Would be nice if that were true, but, in reality land, nope.
You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president’s mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation".
Apparently, we should have just allowed what happened on 9/11 roll off our backs like water from a duck’s back. Just remember, today’s liberals are more in tune with Mike Dukakis saying he would not favor the death penalty even if his wife were raped and murdered then FDR, who gave the go ahead to develop the atomic bomb, and Truman, who gave the go ahead to use it, in order to protect the country. By the time the bombs were used, was Japan even a tiny threat to harm the USA? Nope, and Truman made sure it stayed that way.
The rest of the article is just more reasoning, or, should I say, feeling, that we should just surrender. It’s funny how liberals are always blaming the message, rather then the cause of the message. "Iran is provided aid and support for people to kill American soldiers in Iraq." "Why are you telling us this? You must be creating a drumbeat of war against Iran."
Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as "psychological warfare", and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high. The likelihood of a Brown government directly participating in an attack must be small after the debacle of Iraq. But the possibility that logistical or political support might be offered is more serious. The need to step up public pressure to make sure that does not happen could not be clearer.
How about if you leftards could step up your support for your own governments? Instead of taking the side of Iran and decrying every non-military attempt to force Iran to not develop the nuclear bomb-along with their other activities-perhaps you could help us out. Diplomatic and non-military solutions, such as psychological warfare, are bound to fail when you take a position that opposes your own countries, and weakens their positions, which, eventually, leaves two endings: surrender or war.
