.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A Realistic Slap In The Face From Michael Freund

Mr. Freund is a columnist at the J-Post, and a blogger. His column today on the J-Post site is exactly the sort of sober slap in the puss the administration needs:

HT: Hugh Hewitt

THE SO-CALLED experts and realists are dead wrong when they predict that military action against Iran would kindle a firestorm throughout the Middle East. Precisely the opposite is true.
The reverberations of putting Iran in its place would be entirely positive, and would be felt throughout the region.

Right now the radicals are emboldened because they sense that America is weak and in retreat. Hence, they feel free to make mischief and continue destabilizing the area.

As a result, Syria did not hesitate to orchestrate the murder last week of the Lebanese industry minister, Pierre Gemayel, and Iran is not shying away from its ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons.
And all this talk of talking with the bad guys has only served to encourage them still further.

What is needed now is decisive action, and fast, to slap them down and put the radicals back in their place.

A massive American air assault on Iranian nuclear installations would do just the trick. It would not only set back Teheran's atomic ambitions for years to come, but also serve as a resounding display of US will and resolve.

A strike on Iran would amount to a reversal of the Shi'ite surge that is now taking place throughout the region. It would take the wind out of the Iranian leader's apocalyptic sails, and it would have a noticeable impact on the sectarian violence now raging in Iraq, too.

Syria, Hizbullah and others would take notice, and America's ostensible Arab allies - all of whom are Sunni - would certainly welcome a blow against the dangerous Iranian regime. Stopping Iran in its tracks is the great challenge of our day. For the sake of the entire Western world, and the future of the Jewish people, we can only hope and pray that President Bush will rise to the occasion and do what needs to be done.

"Had Britain stopped fighting in May 1940, Hitler would have won his war," wrote historian John Lukacs in Five Days in London. "He was never closer to victory." The same now holds true of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who may be just months, or even weeks away from crossing the nuclear point of no return.It was Churchill himself who once said, "I never worry about action, only inaction." As a result, he led his nation and the civilized world to victory.

Why do I say this is a slap in the face for the administration? Because if the Baker Commission and its supporters get their way, we'll be TALKING with Iran and Syria instead of sending them a clear and concise message that their days in the terror business are numbered. I'm sick of hearing the talk that diplomacy will help us with Iran and Syria. It won't. Historically, it never does when you're dealing with madmen content to stay on their path. It didn't work with Hitler. It didn't work with the Soviets.

Yes, President Reagan engaged the Soviet Union in talks, but only after he knew they couldn't keep up with our arms race, and he knew they lacked the funds to develop new weapons or weapon systems. At Reykjavík, Reagan saw how worried Gorbachev was when it came to the strategic defense iniative, and he knew he had dealt the death blow to the Soviet Union when he walked away from the table. He didn't need to fire a shot to finish them off. He let the bloated weight of years of Communism do them in.

We can't do that with Iran. Unlike the Soviets, Iran has a steady income flooding into their coffers via oil sales. As long as that continues, they won't fall. The easiest and most logical course of action is direct, military engagement. A B-2 strike on Iran could end Ahmadinejad's ambitions quickly and decisively. And Mr. Freund is quite correct: It would take the wind out of the sails of the rterrorists in Iraq, and severely hamper Assad in Syria. Without the assistance of Iran, Assad has nothing. He needs Iran, just as much as Hezbollah does. I'm not saying that we bomb Iran back to the age of Mohammed, but a specific targeting of their nuclear facilities will bolster our allies in the region, and could possibly end Iran's consistent interference in Iraq.

Iran is the main problem in the region right now. They're backing up Hezbollah and Assad in their engagemnents with Lebanon and Israel, and they are flooding Iraq with fighters, weapons, and munitions. We can't sit idly by and allow Iran to continue work on their nuclear program, and their further plans of reestablishing the old Persian Empire in the region. We shouldn't even speak to the UN about this. Just do it. We go to the UN, we'll be twiddling our thumbs for years to come, and we don't have years to wait. Iran will have nukes soon, and when they get them, the region will surely suffer.

We need to act now, and do so firmly. Iran needs to know--the world needs to know--that we're deadly serious about protecting our nation and our allies. The longer we take, the worse things will get.

Publius II


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog expressly exactly what I feel. I keep referring to Chamberlain and asking who is the Reoublican Chamberlain. I happen to think it's Rice. Rawriter.

5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product