In the WSJ today, the American Enterprise Institute’s Joshua Muravchik sees a kind of method to the recent Persian madness - a misplaced, but nevertheless liberating sense of immunity to consequence:
The apparent meaning of all of this pointless provocation and bullying is that the axis of radicals–Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah–is feeling its oats. In part its aim is to intimidate the rest of us, in part it is merely enjoying flexing its muscles. It believes that its side has defeated America in Iraq, and Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Mr. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that the West has already begun to “surrender,” and he gloated that ” final victory . . . is near.” It is this bravado that bodes war.
A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler’s contempt for America, stoked by the policy of appeasement, is a familiar story. But there are many others. North Korea invaded South Korea after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Korea lay beyond our “defense perimeter.” Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after our ambassador assured him that America does not intervene in quarrels among Arabs. Imperial Germany launched World War I, encouraged by Great Britain’s open reluctance to get involved. Nasser brought on the 1967 Six Day War, thinking that he could extort some concessions from Israel by rattling his sword.
Muravchik’s conclusion is that the conjoined forces of the anti-war lobby and a rattled, war-weary electorate may actually be hastening the outbreak of hostilies – that they may in fact render them inevitable, if only because tyrannies overreach as often as they miscalculate.
Meanwhile, over at the Washington Times, Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave is concerned that with antagonists on every side trembling on the leash, external actors with their own agendas in mind may seek to widen by proxy an age-old conflict with the only foe Sunni Islam has ever really feared: The Persian Shi’a
The word among the neocon family is Mr. Cheney believes Mr. Bush will stick to his pledge not to leave office 16 months hence with Iran’s nuclear facilities unscathed. Either Iran comes clean and stops its nuclear fuel enrichment process under IAEA control, or Tehran faces Mr. Bush’s military option. Two U.S. aircraft carriers are now 30 miles off Iran’s coastline in the Persian Gulf.
Mr. Podhoretz’s new book, “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” posits that we are back in 1938, appeasing the latest dictator with global ambitions. Iran’s Supreme Religious Guide Ali Khamenei, he writes, is far more dangerous than Adolf Hitler because he is building a nuclear arsenal and wants to wipe out, not just 6 million Jews this time, but the entire state of Israel with another 6 million Jews, most of them born since World War II.
A former commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain confided privately he was concerned such a conflagration could be triggered by al Qaeda and concocted to look like an act of war by Iran. This, in turn, would provide the casus belli the hawks seek with increasing impatience.
Even a successful air campaign could only degrade for a limited time – Five years? Ten? – Iranian efforts at nuclearization, even as it quite possibly allied an otherwise rebellious but nonetheless patriotic youth under the clerical autocracy for yet another fatal generation. And although the Iranian military is no match for our forces, and – from a purely military perspective – the outcome is not in doubt, they are not without the means to make trouble of their own.
It might be tempting for an already unpopular administration that feels as though it had nothing left to lose to try and “tidy up around the shop” before heading off into the sunset, but soft options remain – somewhat perversely for an oil exporting nation, Iran imports half of its gasoline – and time probably remains yet for a new generation of executive and congressional leadership to decide whether or how to grasp this particular nettle, and then try and rebuild our currently shattered national consensus. Time that ought to be given to them.
Failing that, and with other important work undone, we ought to try to ensure we don’t just stumble into something – or worse, get pushed.
Even a successful air campaign could only degrade for a limited time – Five years? Ten? -
I’ll take it if that is the best we can do… The whole idea that a strike against offensive nuclear technology will “sour” another generation seems to me a small price to pay to keep the Middle East from engaging in a nuclear exchange…
How many out there, this readership excluded, realize just how horrific a nuclear exchange would be for the Middle East and the world?
The truth is that I would be willing to allow Iran nukes if I thought it would postpoone a nuclear exchange… Of course, it won’t but, I think we are headed in that direction for a whole lot of reasons.
Skipper,
The problem, of course, is that there are no really good options for dealing with this situation.
Unless and until those in the west understand that those in charge in Iran will NEVER give up persuing nuclear weapons, we will have no consensus of action.
The mullahs see nuclear weapons as the means to an end, or rather, bringing about an end. There are other allied groups who also support Iran developing nuclear weapons, but for other reasons.
Iran wants to bring about Armaggedon. It sees the return of the 12th Imam as within it’s grasp to achieve, and it will do whatever it needs to to bring about this result. For the current crop of psychopaths in power, gaining, and then using, nuclear weapons is the quickest means towards achieving that goal.
For AQ and it’s various mutant sub-species, nuclear weapons are desireable in order to destroy the will of western civilization, and bring about THEIR stated goal of a global caliphate, ruling according to Sharia. AQ could care less whether Iran is destroyed, as long as Iranian nukes and the technology needed to make more falls into AQ’s hands.
In fact, the danger of destabilizing Iran in order to halt nuclear development is precisely that AQ may well step in during the subsequent turnoil and make off with the very devices and materials we are seeking to destroy.
It seems to me that the only truly viable course the west has is to treat Iran as the Romans treated Carthage. To utterly destroy it, knock it down, and so devestate the country that no other nation will ever DARE to think about developing nuclear weapons.
I don’t like saying such things. It is not a scenario that those tutored on the “Enlightenment” period want to consider. We’d like to all think that we, in our western mindsets, can solve peacefully such sticky wicketts as these.
In this case, however, it is the more dangerous course we take when we consider peaceful solutions, or half-hearteed measures of “containment” or limited damage.
The eastern mind does not think as we do. It’s philosophy is not the same, it’s view of life is alien to ours. It condones slavery, violence towards women, child labour, and draconian laws enacted and enforced in order to contain power within the hands of a select few.
We cannot ever be able to reason with those who accept Sharia, of Radical Islamic dominance, of Wahabism triumphant. We can only counter, contain, or destroy it.
If they achieve nuclear weapons, countering and containg will no longer be options.
We can hope that the people of Iran will rise up and take back their once great nation, but it seems that for 3 millenia, the Persians have played the same tune over and over again. World domination, by whatever means.
Gazing back across that time, it would appear obvious that western civilization has only one course available to it: “Persia Delenda Est!”
Respects,
5-10 years at best? Poppycock.
When the first bombs hit the uranium refinement facilities, all bets are off. Iran will unleash all its dogs around the world. Are we going to play “shock and awe” with an another Air Force managed campaign of carefully targeted C2 nodes, or are we going to destroy every military aircraft they have on the ground and in the air? Every anti-shipping missile we can find? Sink everything they have that approximates a boat? Destroy all their reserves and refineries, and flatten their fuel loading docks as well? Leave burning hulks of all the palaces of the supreme Islamic Council, as well as smoking corpses of everyone stupid enough to be near those palaces? Hunt down and kill every IRGC element stupid enough not to run for the hills? Send B-52 after B-52 to finally execute those old destruction of Moscow missions on the nuke-related facilities? And when it’s all done, then let some of those Information Warfare types drop some pamphlets explaining that shit like this happens when the populace of a country tolerates murderous thugs for rulers, and hey, good luck with that rebuilding thing.
Maybe I’m only dreaming that President Bush and our senior leadership finally understand that anything worth killing is worth killing totally. But 5-10 years, God forbid, that’s such a low goal compared to what we did to some other countries that deserved what they had coming.
re his- “..sense of immunity to consequence”
That comes from their Islamic fatalism, too.
re your- “Even a successful air campaign could only degrade for a limited time – Five years? Ten? – Iranian efforts at nuclearization, even as it quite possibly allied an otherwise rebellious but nonetheless patriotic youth under the clerical autocracy for yet another fatal generation”
I don’t want to belabor y’all with my “hornets nest” diatribe I have often bloviated about in your “house” yet again, but I ask you- how much worse can it get? If we wait- a helluva lot I’d say. With fundamentalist nuts in charge with police uniforms and hoods and a government on the road to nuclear weapons it is better to come sooner, rather than later. Appealing even to their own interest gains zero traction and diplomacy will never work with ‘em and never has (remeber ’79?).
I sense you are trying to be hopeful Lex, but hoping for behavior mod ain’t ever gonna work with ‘em. Plus, IS will strike ‘em first and that won’t be pretty, either.
If we decrement their offensive capabilities NOW, with airpower- no occupatiuon required, how much more can they hate us? I say not much more. Plus, breathing room is always helpful…..even in latest phase of a War of Culture & Ideas that has gone on for over a milennia. Lastly, we know now that after our Airpower campaign of the 1990′s Saddam never was able to truly develop usable nuclear weapons…think about it.
b2
BTW, that targeting list above is hardly inclusive, the rest of you are invited to submit your own.
So Zane, let me ask you… What do you think is the best answer for Iran gaining tachtical nuclear weapons? Are you all for it? Against it? What do you think will happen if they get nukes? Does this worry you or not?
Well, Lex, you’ve got me scared and worried now. Are you depressing yourself as much as you have me with all these postings?
The options before the US are limited. If we nuke ‘em now, as b2 says, what happens with Korea (who would delight in nuking Japan and South Korea), then Pakistan, and other nuclear-capable countries. Pakistan will errupt into a real mess, especially since they’ve been trying to straddle the line and appease both the US and the Islamists. If we strike Iran, all bets are off with Pakistan. And India will probably jump in and try to stake a claim to the disputed area between Pakistan and India — again — and then both countries will use their nuclear capabilities on each other.
The potential for world-wide nuclear war is definetly there.
It’s a fine mess we’re in and not any solutions jump up to me — easy ones or really, really hard ones, either. Just bad ones.
Okay. I’m completely depressed and demoralized now. There is no solution and I’m ready to go hide under the covers.
Let me know when it’s safe to come out again.
These are frieghtening times we live in. However, I don’t see that we have much of a choice. We’ve got a problem that we have to deal with. As we saw through the Clinton years; ignoring these freaks will not make them go away.
How exactly do we do it? What and how hard do we hit? I have no idea. I’ll leave that to better minds than this one. One thing is clear though; if we don’t do something sooner rather than later there will be a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, or God forbid NYC.
Jim C
Not that there’s anything wrong with your plan Zane, but did you take your lithium this morning?
Aw, you know that the pussys will go for that whole proportionality thing. Where is Curtis Lemay when we need him?
Jim,
I don’t think they’ll hit NYC, Washington or Atlanta with a nuke, unless it’s all they can get to. The reason is, those are our telecom hubs, and the one thing these psychos need is media attention. If they knock out the main studios, then there’s no way to get the message out with the coverage they crave.
More likely, they’ll go after Salt Lake City, Denver, or Las Vegas. Those are all inland and can showcase AQ’s ability to strike anywhere, especially the middle of a continent. It’s also a prime area to get media attention, especially Las Vegas, which AQ considers Satan’s playground anyway.
Respects,
Mr. Muravchik’s premise is essentially correct; wars are not fought as a result of perceived strengths; they are fought because of perceived weaknesses.
Most often, a sheathed sword is sufficient as long as potential belligerents actually believe it may be drawn, and them quartered. Once they think you don’t have the stomach for the fight, they act like a predator that sees a quarry run. The chase instinct is almost Pavlovian.
This only works for sentient beings; once you start dealing with folks with rats in their head, all bets are off. Whether these rats are pharmaceutical, idiopathic, or cultural makes no difference. They will not play according to your rules.
Here is a “true detective” story. Guy with brain rats is being held at gunpoint (just after putting a gun to a pedestrian’s head), a 12 bore about 8 feet from his port proboscis. HE DID NOT CARE.
After eyeballing the lead and his cover, and seeing all options closed, he attacked.
Some one once said the world is ironic.
We are at such a crossroads. Do we take action and toss aside politics? Or do we continue down a road with a foe that is rowing down a river?
The Red Coats were easy targets marching in the woods back in those days. At what point do we start playing by the rules required to achieve a favorable outcome?
We do have a big sword. I just hope it’s not so big it cannot be swung savvy.
Tim,
“…it seems that for 3 millenia, the Persians have played the same tune over and over again. World domination, by whatever means.”
It’s not just the Persians. It’s a lot of people who do that. “Once an empire, always an empire,” is how a professor of mine put it. He’s spent a lot of time in the Islamic world, and he says that mentality is common over there. It’s partly an Islamic thing and partly a national thing – the countries that used to be powerful on account of their water resources (like Egypt and Syria and Yemen) resent the Abdullah-come-latelys who used to own empty desert but got rich on oil (like Libya and the Gulf states.) (While on water and oil, I think part of the reason Iraq is such a mess is because it’s at the crossroads of the Middle East physically, so everybody comes there, plus it has both water and oil so everybody simultaneously resents it and wants it.) That imperial mentality is hard to shake, especially among peoples with long memories. It’s not just an Islamic thing, either; look at what a hard time France and Russia have had dealing with their loss of position in the world.
It’s just that here, Iran is playing the old imperialist game with nukes and religious fervor. The stakes and the uncertainty are a whole lot higher than they used to be.?Ǭ
Tim,
“…it seems that for 3 millenia, the Persians have played the same tune over and over again. World domination, by whatever means.”
It’s not just the Persians. It’s a lot of people who do that. “Once an empire, always an empire,” is how a professor of mine put it. He’s spent a lot of time in the Islamic world, and he says that mentality is common over there. It’s partly an Islamic thing and partly a national thing – the countries that used to be powerful on account of their water resources (like Egypt and Syria and Yemen) resent the Abdullah-come-latelys who used to own empty desert but got rich on oil (like Libya and the Gulf states.) (While on water and oil, I think part of the reason Iraq is such a mess is because it’s at the crossroads of the Middle East physically, so everybody comes there, plus it has both water and oil so everybody simultaneously resents it and wants it.) That imperial mentality is hard to shake, especially among peoples with long memories. It’s not just an Islamic thing, either; look at what a hard time France and Russia have had dealing with their loss of position in the world.
It’s just that here, Iran is playing the old imperialist game with nukes and religious fervor. The stakes and the uncertainty are a whole lot higher than they used to be.¢
Theodore,
Yes indeed. France is still seeking to recoup L’Gloire”. Russia is still trying to get people to pay attention to her as well.
The Persians, though… I generalised, true. I tend to lump many such as the Sassanids, Seleucids, Assyrians, Babylonians, et al as “Persia”, even though that’s a rather large brush to colour with. I look at them as sort of the Middle-East’s version of “The Borg”.
Yet it was the Persians who started to export their ideals across the waters. Yes, they were beaten down by Alexander, the Ptolemies ran things until the Romans showed up, but each time the thumb was lifted those pesky Persians stepped right back to the plate supporting their grand conquest concept(s).
And now we have them contained physically into the old domains of what was the ancestral lands, and STILL they threaten the world.
I dunno. I hope someone can get Charles Martel on their speed-dial.
Respects,
Babs, I’m not sure what you’re asking me, but I think you’re poking me (gently), “So, Zane, tell us what you REALLY think?” But in case I wasn’t clear, I am absolutely not/NOT in favor of Iran developing nukes, because it will use them if at all they can, even if only as a threatened big stick. That big stick threat is already paralyzing. End the threat ASAP, and in such a manner that the country itself will spend ten years reconstituting itself, never mind any nuclear ambitions. Sound like overkill? Not to the airmen in the Khobar barracks, or the Marines and Sailors (and French troops, also), in Beirut. Payback is a bitch, let’s pay some forward as well.
Israel struck Osirak in 1982. So Saddam didn’t have any opportunity to have nukes during the Iran/Iraq War, or the Kuwait invasion, and he had a damned hard time reconstituting the program he had during the 1990s. Sounds like 5-10 years is a good investment, but a serious campain will make it longer. Might give Egypt and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ought to think about as well, as they start dipping their fingers into the nuclear wells.
Casca, it’s not lithium, it’s these endless thimbles of Italian caffe. Un altro macchiato, per favore, e forte.
I agree with Zane up to a point, if he’s serious about a significant and rolling air war…Basically, he is outling a comprehensive air campaign- EX-first six weeks of Persian Gulf War 1. My air war solution stops short of nuclear, however. IMO, nucs not required.
BTW, P-3W, I never mentioned offensive use of nuclear weapons to accomplish that task….
Just attacking the nuclear nodes from the air is NOT enough. Doing that will have as much effect as Clinton’s Tomahawk attack on the Taliban… If that is all we will attempt it is better to do nothing.
Comprehensive means desroying-disabling infrastructure and there military in addition to the nuc nodes. Power plants, power grids, essential infrastructure like bridges, etc., as well as all leadership nodes and all targetable offensive miltary capability- aircraft, missiles, ships and garrisons close to the IQ or AF borders. We must destroy any tangible Iranian capability to project power. And sustain that pressure until all is disabled or destroyed. No truce unless the regime falls.
Big BTW, no ground or occupying force required.
Secondly- sustain that effort with no fly zone and embargo. Perhaps being in the dark- without water for a time may convince your average Iranian we here so much about, to actually want to change their government, which as it stands today can’t really get much worse.
Of course, if regime change doesn’t occur (likely), this won’t stop them from what they are already doing via Hamas, Hizbollah or in Iraq…exporting terrorism. Key word there- already. Given the status quo and a certain future of a nuclear armed Iran if we do nothing, what have we to lose? If we throw the first punch with enough ooomph, the “Sword of Damocles” may still be hanging from the ceiling, but at least it won’t be right over our heads for awhile.
Why do we need to do this? Because, they’d do it to us with nucs yesterday if they had them. What is ironic here is that if we wait too long IS will do it first..and THAT, P-3W is really something to fear….Because we (the USA) won’t be calling the shots or dictating which weapons to use….
Zane? Just what were you going to do with them Buffs? You have Casca salivating over Curtis Lemay…
b2
b2, yeah, I forgot the old Moscow missions involved nukes (not a small thing to forget). I was thinking repeated iterations of large quantities of dumb iron, after a few waves of penetrators had shaken up the foundations. No need to nuke Iran, yet. Wouldn’t follow up with another no-fly zone, though. Wouldn’t need it, they wouldn’t have anything left to fly. They can engage in all the free market trade they have ships for, embargos don’t work worth crap at creating regime change. But if anything military-like takes to the water, sink it.
BTW, my model isn’t Gulf War I, it’s Tokyo/Dresden/Berlin. Completely break any will to resist, show them the true path to “submission.”
I’m with you Zane on the proper airwar needs to be conducted.. however it sounds real scary to some of the folks in/about this blog who think this escalates to the lobbing of transcontinental nucs. That is exactly what a preemptive airwar, properly conducted, would prevent, or at minimum, delay…
BTW, bombing cities to expressly target/kill civilians ain’t part of my plan, nor will it be, by any administration based on our ethic regarding proportionality in war. Be real.
re- “When the first bombs hit the uranium refinement facilities, all bets are off. Iran will unleash all its dogs around the world.”
My point above is that they are already loose, around the world and within their present capability. If they did try something else, any mass of conventional symmetric force would be wiped out before it could manuever… The Persians last experience with conventional war was a static-line trench warfare like WWI, fought with Saddam in the ’80′s. Our forces would go through that like a knife through hot butter….We may not be effective occupiers or 100% on COIN- yet, but we do know how to fight manuever warfare.
Regardless of what their response might be, however pitiful, my idea does not call for an ground force occupation of Iran. They will have to create a new government/society on their own and out of the ashes. Nation building or the introduction of democracy to Iran ain’t in it.
b2
b2,
I think that however much we try to keep a war/pre-emption/targeted strike to non-nuke, that the Iranian mullahs and whozits will make it a nuke war really quick. They don’t have the desire nor the goal of surviving a nuke war — they just want to destroy everything they can first. Especially Israel.
I don’t think we’ll have many options if they jump the gun and start a domino effect of nuke strikes with Israel, Pakistan, India, and whatever “lost” Soviet nukes are available on the market. I think that if this happens, the NORK nut will jump in and nuke South Korea and any US allies he can, like Japan. Who knows what China would do?
But then, I’m a pessimist, always pleasantly surprised when the worst doesn’t happen.
Best.
P-3W,
Precisely why we should pre-empt- they don’t have a nuclear weapon- yet.
Of course they would use one yesterday if they had it, but nuclear weapons must still be “delivered”…Only 1/2 a dozen countries of the world have significant nuclear weapon delivery capabilities-thank God none are in the Middle East…yet.
And that is why we should decrement their capability Now-Soon via an comprehensive airwar. To do nothing invites two things-
1- allows them to develop a nuclear bomb and concurrently develop a delivery system/method.
2- Forces Israel to take action pre-emptively and first. They may use nuclear weapons on a 1st strike.
See my point? We are fast approaching a go-no-go point. Definable I’ll bet- IS probably has it down to date/time based on Iranian milestones..The status quo is simply unacceptable.
b2
True, b2, regarding stopping them before they get nukes operational, that would be best. I’m just not sure that I trust they aren’t already there and just waiting for an opportunity. If not ready now, then dumping whatever they can into operation regardless of readiness — who cares if it doesn’t work right.
The mad mullahs and whozits are nuts enough to be playing a suicidal game of chicken with the US and Israel. Their people are getting stomped into the ground with rules and regulations (anyone one missing their “smoking fingers” lately?) that the ruling nuts may push the place into anarchy / civil war / coup / who knows what?
I don’t know, b2, but these are scary times and likely to get scarier before getting less scary. No easy answers to the Iran question, that’s for sure.
b2, I must be writing poorly, nothing new for me, because we seem to keep crossing wires. I don’t think we need to drop anything other than HE in extremely adequate quantities (my fear is that we don’t have enough in stock). Nor am I advocating targeting civilians, but a the sort of levelling that hasn’t been done in a long time, the kind that breaks an enemy’s will to fight. This pinpoint, precisely targeted crap is great for limited tactical mission goals, but lousy when it comes to breaking the will of an opponent.
I don’t have all the answers P-3W, but I’ve learned this over the course of my life and in the job I had before I associated with Naval Air: If someone keeps threatening, bullying and talking about taking action, that eventually they will..Especially true of the criminal mind. On that thought I offer you the thought of (as Lex names him) “Ol’Beady Eyes” Amadinejhad. Why fight on his terms?
Scary? Sure. WW-IV? I think so-early phases, not many others do. Outcome? Who can predict, although I am betting on the USA. We’ve been there, we’ve done that.
b2
AW1 Tim,
I think you’re right, I think NYC would probably be down on their list. However, I live in Denver… so…
I guess my main point was that we can’t just hide under the covers. Ignoring these guys WILL NOT make them go away. Like I said, what and how hard we hit? I don’t know, but clearly inaction isn’t an option.
Best,
Jim C
I was hoping you’d say that Zane, but when you compare the firebombing of cities like Dresden you kinda got off the reservation.
The people definetly need to be affected, IE- no water or electricity for several months, foodlines, etc. Let them sue for peace like Saddam did after we have neutralized (destroyed preferably) their military capability. Right now I think their oil industry & logistics capability wouldn’t need to be attrited- they’ve taken care of that with their own buffoonery.
re- “but a the sort of levelling that hasn?
I was hoping you’d say that Zane, but when you compare the firebombing of cities like Dresden you kinda got off the reservation.
The people definetly need to be affected, IE- no water or electricity for several months, foodlines, etc. Let them sue for peace like Saddam did after we have neutralized (destroyed preferably) their military capability. Right now I think their oil industry & logistics capability wouldn’t need to be attrited- they’ve taken care of that with their own buffoonery.
re- “but a the sort of levelling that hasn’t been done in a long time, the kind that breaks an enemy’s will to fight”
I agree Zane, but there ain’t nothing wrong with “pinpoint targeting” or no revisit time applied to the above. What you are thinking via Shock & Awe of ’03, I think, is to avoid a selective targeting set this time that left infrastructure, avoided ammo dumps, etc, etc, so we could turn it over to someone… In that I agree 100&.
I envision no such thing for Iran as part of an air war- I advocate no ground troops, no invasion, no occupation. Nothing to turnover-no real estate to hold, simply just destruction of all visible military capability-air-sea-garrison-vehicles-leadership-C2-etc., all visible & known nuc nodes, and most importantly, infrastructure destruction to hopefully modify behavior leading to regime change.
We can do this and that time to do it is fast approaching. In reality no other option is available to us, especially if we don’t want to face the consequences of “later”. I am hopeful smarter folks than me are contingency planning…After ’08? Who knows.
b2
re: no nukes needed… has anyone else heard that their facilities are so deep undergorund as to neccesitate tac nukes? That’s what I had heard specifically about the Netanz facility… That it would be difficult to neutralize without using nuc bunker busters. Thoughts?
Jim C
Time to go hard, I am all for wiping Iran off the map.
We have after all been at war with these cretins since 78. Well let me rephrase that, They have been at war with us since 78 and it’s time we cowboy up and sing “Happy Trails To You” in an earsplitting fashion.
Saudi’s are next on my list, since they support and fund Wahabbisim, which is the prime factor in the WOT.
All these bastards have to do is NUC LA, San Fran, and Seattle to make a large swath of the USA uninhabitable, due to fallout patterns with the prevailing winds.
It’s curious to me how easily the idea’s of proliferation are being tossed up in the air.
It is so strange to have an enemy that is fighting God’s [Allah's] type of way. There is no sense in it!
“I’m directed by my God to eradicate you. By whatever means necessary. It says so in this book that I have in my pocket. My government said that genocide is OK [as long as I am in the same beliefs as my government]. And if i kill myself and take a couple of you with me, I’m really cool and my family is cool because of my suicide [martyrdom]. Oh, and one more thing that I almost forgot, kill every Jew on the planet, every single one, just because.”
Reminds me of a bar joke:
“He may be a trained fighter, but i know Crazy!”
b2, I think we’re synched now.
Yeah, I agree Zane, sometimes these discussions go awry and I certainly would hate to give anyone any ideas..
b2