Timothy Birdnow

Ths is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read, and it comes from American Thinker.

When you get right down to it, there really is no good reason to pre-emptively attack Iran, which has never attacked the U.S. and has no immediate capability to do so. When you cut through the excuses, it’s basically because Iran has a repressive, fundamentalist theocratic government, and we don’t like that.

end

Whatever you think about the prospects of us attacking Iran this is an incredibly ignorant and myopic paragraph. No good reason to attack Iran? We've had nothing BUT good reasons to attack Iran, going all the way back to their seizure of our embassy in the late seventies. We never punished them for that. And how many terrorist attacks have the Iranians had a hand in against us?

Here is a list of attacks by Iran and her terrorist proxies since 1979.

So that claim is pure nonsense. But what of the claim Iran has no ability to do so? Does he not know Hizbollah is still around? That in fact Iran sent hundreds of terrorists to the United States and in fact the assassination attempt on Pesident Trump (that almost succeeded) may well have been orchestrated by Iran?

Attacks are not always with missiles.

Furthermore, claiming there is no good reason to attack Iran is just idiotic; there are GREAT reasons to attack Iran. If nothing else it would be worthwhile to topple the Mullahcracy. Certainly no replacement government would be any worse.

As I say, there are reasons that can be given to not attack Iran. But if someone wants to post in American Thinker they should at least post something that makes a lick of sense.

"So what if they do, though? When did it become our business to depose foreign governments we deem "repressive”?"

end

We've always claimed that right from the time of the Tripolitan War onward (what does he think we were doing in Libya but attempting to topple a repressive regime). We generally don't take those steps unless they pose a direct threat to us, which Iran clearly does. Even though we stopped their nuclear program for the moment they have vowed to restart it and are actually already trying to rebuild. And they still spend money to fund terrorism against us and against Israel.

He goes on to blame Woodrow Wilson and says military intervention was his idea, which is as ahistorical as it gets. Has he never heard of the Mexican war? The Texas revolution? The Revolution and creation of the Republic of West Florida? The Spanish American war?

He is correct in that we had no business getting involved in WWI, but that is beside the point. We were doing this well before the War to End All Wars.

Furthermore the author confuses the wars America fought and losing the peace, as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why did we lose the peace? Because we thought to remake the nations we invaded (and we did that with ground assaults; we have happily bombed countries for a hundred years and never had much of a problem) and that didn't work because these people were not just Americans with funny accents. I remember Sean Hannity talking about the "yearning to be free" and other such American shibboleths which were not applicable. We always thought we had to not just win the war but then stay and show what nice fellows we are.

What we should have done in Iraq was support whoever could bring order. We didn't do that.

The fact is we've had all sorts of successful interventions in foreign countries over the century. Look at Chile' where we kicked the Communist out.

Taking action against a nation that regularly chants "death to America" is as conservative as it gets. Lefties like to chant that stuff too.

The Iranians have a missile they call "the Ambassador of Death". I say let's show 'em some real Wild West diplomacy, shall we!

Oh, he also quotes Founding Fathers on avoiding foreign entanglements. Fine and dandy but the fact is that was when America had three million people spread across the whole eastern seaboard and our nearest enemy was all the way across the Atlantic. A different policy for a different age. When times change you either change or go under. This author des not seem to understand that this is a whole different era with different conditions.

Again, I can see where people don't want to get into another war, and there is a case to be made to NOT attack Iran, but at least make sense with it. This thing was pure sophistry and unfitting for American Thinker.

Hide Comments | Add Comment