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
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
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?