CONSERVATIVE, EH?
Re: John Tabin’s Grit
Removal:
It was with delight I read the positive comments on our new
Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. I have written many a letter to
Americans to tell them the many, many Canadians do not hate
Americans. This is another of the liberal’s spin trying to get the
vote on anti-Americans which did not work, but he cannot see that,
he thinks everyone thinks as he does and he is just wrong.
For five years I have watched the Liberal Party govern and have
felt great despair seeing the spin put on America and President
Bush. Day after day we heard and read about the nasty and low
remarks made by Mr. Martin and his cabinet. It is like the liberals
in America with their daily spin on anything that can hurt
President Bush. It has been embarrassing to say the very least and
many Canadians felt real anger about this.
As Americans believe the spin from their liberals, there are
people here who believe the liberals here simply because they have
been taught to by the never-ending comments from them, which are
repeated on the MSM here who are as biased as the NYT and
Washington Post towards conservatives. It has been
interesting to see quite a few of the newspapers that have come out
in support of Mr. Harper.
I am so excited about tomorrow and even, as you say, he does not
get a majority he will get things done. He is a good family, a man
of the people who likes curling, does impressions that are very
funny, apparently. I think he and President Bush will enjoy each
other’s company and will work at achieving the best for both
countries. He is a uniter, as shown from his work in the last
twenty years.
My family and I are seeing hope for Canada, hope for the country
we love, and it will be a huge, huge weight off our shoulders when
Mr. Harper accepts the role of Prime Minister of Canada.
My thanks go to President Bush who is a real class act. He has
never said a word in public that was not in some way positive about
Canada. When he came to visit here and said “Hey, it is nice to see
all the fingers waving!” (Instead of getting the finger!) I really
laughed! He really is a great fellow. I know he will be happy to
see conservatives here in Canada.
If it should happen the liberals get in, the anger and
disappointment will be clearly seen in the west, particularly
Alberta, and maybe your states close to us should set up a wall
because we might get our wagon train going and turn up at your
doors! (As I am an American as well as a Canadian, I will be on the
first wagon.)
Thanks again, and if you can hear us yelling with joy, just
ignore us as we know the real work is just starting, but we deserve
a party, and we will have a terrific one. See us roar!
— Carole Graham
RHYMES WITH HOEDOWN
Re: Jed Babbin’s Iran
Showdown:
We’d better think long and hard about taking Babbin’s advice in
“Iran Showdown.” What are the chances that we will inflict major
damage on the Iranian facilities? I’m not a military expert, but
judging from past attacks I would say the chances are not good. We
would need faultless intelligence, when experience tells us it’s
mostly faulty. Then we would need perfect execution, which never
happens. The mostly likely outcome would be minor damage to Iran’s
nuclear facilities. No one in the world would judge our attack as
justified. Then what? Wait for more faulty intelligence to tell us
that Iran is still on the path to a bomb? An aerial assault on Iran
today would put us on the same path we followed with Iraq after the
first Gulf war — sanctions, escalation, and then invasion strung
out over a dozen years. If we’re not willing to put boots on the
ground in Iran and chop off the tyrant’s head, and I’m not, then we
need to find some more creative solutions to the problem.
— Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
One of my biggest gripes in life is the fact that we keep sending
in ground troops. We bombed Japan in WWII. It was done to stop a
nasty war in its tracks, and save many lives on both sides. Since
then, we have limited bombing and sent in a lot of ground troops.
We don’t seem committed enough to bomb first and ask questions
later. Civilian casualties are part of war. 9/11. If we must attack
Iran, and we must, let’s get out all the good stuff and do it
right. Civilians are working in those plants helping their tyrants
set up this mess. And if we send in our troops to surgically remove
the bad guys and leave the innocent civilians, we will be trying to
sort the bastards out for eternity. Like we did in Nam and are
doing in Iraq and just about every war before and in between. Enemy
doesn’t have guts enough to wear a uniform and stand up and fight.
Once our men are in, it is hard to back up and really bomb.
We were so close. Hanoi was just about ready to throw in the
towel. Politicians grounded the 52’s and Hanoi was hidden behind
American POWs. Hanoi knew public opinion here at home was siding
with them.
We must support Israel. If this is done right, come election
time, there will be no contest. Between now and elections,
Americans need to shut off the TV and read Atomic Iran by
Jerome Corsi. If enough of them read it, public opinion will tell
“W” to saddle up and get it done. A horse smells so much better
than a stinking camel.
Thank you for “Iran Showdown.” Lots of research. Lots of work.
We are sitting on the edge. No room for a wrong move. No room for a
move directed by public opinion, or political pressure.
— Martin N. Tirrell
Lisbon, New Hampshire
Mr. Babbin’s attitudes, inclinations, and advice are the closest to
my thinking of just about anyone writing on a regular basis today.
Where we diverge is only on some of the potential details.
Sir, in my ever so humble opinion, we have almost missed our
chance to bring Syria to heel. We should have done two things
almost two years ago. First we should have established a clear
policy of “hot pursuit” into Syria to cut off the cross border
infusion of Islamic terrorist fighters and suicide bombers, and to
convince doubting Arabs within and without Iraq of our seriousness
in solving the violence problem. Second, we should have quietly
given the Israelis the green light to deal with Assad and the
Syrians in any way that they thought would be effective, and on
their own timetable
What has that to do with Iran? It is my thesis that we are
overstretched to a point where we would have a very hard time
dealing with both Iran AND Syria right now, and any attempt to deal
with one will bring the other into active conflict with us as some
level (formally or informally). I do NOT mean overstretched as in
the ability to wage all out national war against both countries. I
refer to waging war on something similar to the current type of
conflict - which would seem to be the preference of President
Bush.
I also refer to the limitations imposed by the present political
climate and “national mood.” Yes, this does indeed impose very real
parameters on what we realistically can attempt.
As I say, I am as one with Jed Babbin on the necessity for
action and the very real implications of the Islamic world’s
attitudes and inclinations. I firmly believe that the battle has
been on with the Moslem world since at least the time of the
takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in ‘79 and will be still
going on long after it matters to my human self. I only hope that
the tentativeness of the Bush administration, after an initial good
start, does not come back to bite us.
— Ken Shreve
Concerning Jed Babbin’s “Iran Showdown” I remind you all that Iran
declared war on the U.S. in 1979 (it was under a Democratic
administration), and has never, to the best of my knowledge,
rescinded that declaration. We are at war with Iran, and
have been for a long time. Our 26 year attempts to ignore the war
have been fruitless. We could have ignored Hitler’s &
Mussolini’s war declarations in 1941— but that would have been a
stupid idea.
Trying that approach since 1979 has not made it any better an
idea. Recognizing and acknowledging that Iran has been at war with
us would make legal whatever we do, and would also negate any
obligation to “go to the UN.” It ought render even a further
congressional resolution unnecessary — or at worst an easy
call.
Even if there were no WMD a-borning in Iran, an attack would be
fully justified by the 444-day hostage crisis, which began with the
illegal seizure of individuals with diplomatic immunity, and the 26
years of acts of war by Iran ever since.
— George Mellinger
Given Iran’s support for international terrorism and threats to
destroy Israel, America should inform China that America will
supply missiles and nuclear weapons technology to Taiwan. That
would get China’s attention. Then again, America might send a
stronger message by helping Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons.
Lastly, there also is the option of blocking all Chinese imports to
the U.S., which would have salubrious results throughout China.
It is a mistake to believe that Israel couldn’t end Iran’s
effort immediately. Israel possesses hydrogen bombs, which are
orders of magnitude more destructive than the A-bombs being
developed by Iran. The historical irony is that because Israel has
been subjected to Germany’s final solution, it is highly unlikely
to subject Iran to the same. A word of warning to those receptive:
If Israel feels that its annihilation is in the offing, it probably
will nuke every major Muslim city in the region, from Cairo to
Mecca.
Israel’s more prudent tactic, which was suggested by PacRim Jim,
would be to apply a dose of EMPs (electromagnetic pulses) as
needed, to disable Iran’s electric and electronic infrastructures
into the indefinite future.
— David Govett
Davis, California
Your analysis of an immediate war or confrontation with Iran is
probably planned or being planned in many different countries right
now and is probably close to what you have laid out. But events
probably won’t follow the path you have contemplated. There is
inertia against learning the past and following its lessons. So
there is general reluctance among the world’s nations for various
reasons such as trade and military alliances and jealousies to the
sudden outburst of warfare particularly when it involves the
world’s only super-power and Israel. It’s a better bet that
negotiations will necessarily have to run their course and that in
the meantime a secret war will commence. This war will attempt to
destabilize the Iranian government by supporting dissidents,
funding friendly political groups, sabotage, and formation of a
Western glide path away from oil to nuclear energy and hydrogen,
and propaganda suggesting an end of the Middle-east oil monopoly.
While this approach may or may not work, it will overcome the
initial inertia to war and at some point present some viable
opportunities to extinguish Iran’s possible military capabilities
that could threaten others.
— Howard Lohmuller
Seabrook, Texas
Perhaps the Europeans should freeze those Iranian assets in their
countries before Iran pulls the assets out, as Mr. Babbin thinks
the Iranians will. Of course, it will require the Europeans to have
the will.
— Paul DeSisto
Cedar Grove, New Jersey
Do you really think that Shia Iran could be the leader of a new
Islamic Caliphate when 85 percent of the Muslim world is Sunni?
— Rick
