Report: U.S. Will Attack Iran
--NewsMax
Israel's Army Radio is reporting that President Bush intends to launch a military strike against Iran before the end of his term.
The Army Radio, a network operated by the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted a government source in Jerusalem. The source disclosed that a senior official close to Bush said in a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed military action against Iran was now called for.
It's easy to brush this off as just the fevered and hopeful imagination of Israel, and just as easy to dismiss it because Israel is perceived as not being as intel-savvy as the West-- but this in not true. Israel is VERY intel-savvy. Question then remains, why did Israel disclose something so potentially... I'm at a lose for words so YOU fill in the blank...? Is it a ploy, with NO kernel of truth? Or a ploy WITH a kernel of truth?
This is what's truly interesting...
Saudi Arabia is taking steps to prepare for possible radioactive contamination from U.S. destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Saudi government reportedly approved nuclear fallout preparations a day after Cheney met with the kingdom's highest-ranking officials.
Bush may or may not be planning something, but in light of his speech before the Knesset last week it could be that he's considering the possibility that Iran, if not countered in its nuclear ambitions, could pose not just a terminal threat to Israel, but dangerous threat to the West AND the U.S. as well.
Obama and Hillary would certainly use this against McCain, even though McCain would not be the one approving an attack on Iran. But this goes back to the whole previous debate about Bush's speech and its veiled attack against politicians who choose to talk with "terrorists" without preconditions... namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Obama spoke this morning in response to McCain's jab at him and said, roughly, that the "failed policies of Bush and McCain" were responsible for Iran being as close to nuclear capability as they are, and that HIS reasoned approach to the situation could "change their minds" about nuclear weapons. A pipe dream turned pipe-bomb!
But this is extremely naive. Talking with madmen has never stopped madmen from doing the insane. For all that he claims to have an "in" to the Muslim mindset because of his world travels, he seems to have utterly forgotten or entirely discounts Islam's complete and utter antipathy toward Israel. Obama's approach will not achieve anything.
Iran is not Russia. We cannot outspend them and bankrupt their economy trying to catch up. Iran only wants a handful of nukes before actually attacking Israel. And if Israel believes Iran is as close to achieving its first by next year..... we'd be foolish in the extreme to discount it out of hand.
Time is of the essence. Bush's approval rating is already in the tank (though twice as high as Congress'). Any of the three candidates would be reluctant to attack Iran, even for good cause, as they'd be thinking of how such an action might affect their reelection bid. But Bush isn't running for reelection. His actions could give Democrats reason to "spread the love" to McCain as well, but Bush has shown he's not particularly concerned with polls.
Thing is, it's easy to point to 9/11 and say, 'if only we had caught those men...' But what if the Bush administration HAD caught those men, and did it by "bending the rules" and abusing FISA? Democrats and many more besides would be ready to crucify him for abuse of power, war crimes, whatever. The figment of a disaster averted would not "play" at all. The argument would be, 'Yeah, they could have done a lot of damage, but they didn't! Chances are they probably wouldn't have succeeded anyway!'
Question: Can we afford to let Iran acquire nuclear weaponry? How long after Obama (assuming he CAN win) gets the big chair and begins formal talks with Iran will Iran actually acquire them? And, realistically, would Iran really stop for Obama when they're on the very cusp of acquiring their nukes in days, weeks, or a few SHORT months? Saddam stalled for 10+ years while the U.N. did nothing but line their own pockets with Iraqi "oil for food" gold. How long would President Barack Obama continue to talk with Iran? Until Israel erupts in mushroom clouds? At which point President Obama raises his hands and says, "we tried, but Iran choose not to change directions!" ?? Does he retaliate?
A bit late wouldn't you say? Too late. Far too late for Israel. Such an attack on Israel would see her nukes launched in retaliation and then we would see a war that has never been seen before, nor ever will again.
For all Obama appears to be well-meaning in his intention to "talk" to the enemy, he can't walk into ANY meeting without a very big stick. Madmen only respond "reasonably," unless threatened for not being reasonable.
Obama either doesn't know this-- which makes him naive. Or he does-- which makes him criminally dangerous. Either/Or, is Obama a risk this nation can afford?
64 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you not believe war is coming whether we strike first or not?
I didn't state in the body of this post whether I agreed with this "maybe" first strike by Bush and the U.S., frankly I don't-- I'd rather Israel did that, and we supported them. This is there fight, not necessarily ours. But since the world is no longer a collection of isolated nations doing whatever they please with impunity, Iran must be taken seriously. Iran is moving toward war, whether we recognize it or not. Their actions are provocative enough to force someone's hand.
I know you take prophesy with a grain of salt, so I won't belabor that point with you, except to say a man would have to be a complete ignoramus to not see what's coming... and you, sir, are no ignoramus. Irascible to be sure, but ignorant.
So I ask you again, Do you not believe war is coming whether we strike first or not?
If you think Ahmadinejad is a "madman," what makes you think he would respond to threats with a big stick?
If talking won't work with him because he's crazy, will threatening him with annihilation then work? If he's crazy, would it not be possible that he might LOVE the opportunity to be made into a martyr and further prove how dangerous the US is to the rest of the world?
We've got to quit letting the "madmen" of the world make our decisions for us. We ought to act Righteously and follow our laws and rules and uphold the American ideal regardless of who we're dealing with. Seems to me.
As a couple of other famous appeasers and "softies" said:
"In the course of [a] conflict [elsewhere], let it be our endeavor, as it is our interest and desire, to cultivate the friendship of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and of incessant kindness;
to receive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the sea, but to administer the means of annoyance to none."
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure."
[Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, respectively.]
Spare us, Danielsan. There is no greater fear-pandering going on than the War on Weather.
You fear something completely made-up...we fear Islamists with nukes.
I think it UNWISE, immoral and imprudent to hyperconsume as we do our oil, basing our economy on a finite product.
If we do nothing [and I'm not advocating we do anything here] and Iran gets her nukes, will we be safer? Will Obama's failed foreign policy of talk and appeasement come back to bite us all in the butt? The "Big Stick" method of diplomacy has its place, though I'm not so sure it'd work in this situation. And so too does the "Carrot" method that Obama seems to favor. But sooner or later, while we're vacillating between one and the other, Iran WILL acquire nukes. When that happens, no matter how much you disapprove of my calling Ahmadinejad a 'Madman,' he has repeatedly made his intention clear, as has Hamas and others, Ahmadinejad will seek to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
How do you assuage your conscience then? Knowing what he would do, yet we did nothing substantive to stop him, could we call that a Sin of Omission?
Barack said the eventuality of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is intolerable; castigating McCain for Bush's failed foreign policy resulting in the lives of over 4,000 U.S. military personnel lost, on top of untold hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. But what happens when Iran decimates millions of Israelis, sparking the mutually assured destruction of Iran, Syria, and who knows whom else, by Israel?
Will you blame Israel? Or Obama's OWN failed foreign policy?
How many people reading this are aware of the prophesy that declares Damascus will be utterly destroyed, never to be inhabited again? The language seems to suggest a nuclear detonation. I only mention this because up to now the argument has been predicated upon a huge "IF." IF Iran acquires nukes; IF Iran attacks Israel; IF. There is no room for IF in this regard, in this discussion.
Your life, Dan, is most certainly in the hands of God, whether you are one of His or not. But don't think He will not hold this nation accountable for how we blessed Israel, or cursed her. Will our hands be clean of Israel's blood if/when Ahmadinejad chooses to make good on his promise to destroy Israel? Even Saudi Arabia is frightened of Iran, and they intimately understand the Muslim dynamic! but America, and men like Barack Obama think they know better.
Many of us have made the statement that this election is one of the most significant in terms of sheer importance to the continuance of this nation's future. And it is becoming clearer and clearer each day that this is indeed the truth. I sure hope we're all wrong. But if I had to choose between Barack and Hillary, race would not be an issue. Neither would gender. Hillary, I do not believe, would take the "stick" off the table. Obama hasn't given any reason for me to believe he would even put the stick ON the table.
In this respect, Obama is just as dangerous a man as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You fear enough for your sustenance that you work for your food.
You fear enough when you ride in a car (I suspect)that you wear seatbelts.
You fear the elements enough to have a roof over your head and a heat source.
You obviously fear conservatism enough to embrace the immorality of the left.
It makes sense, dear Dan, to fear an attack by those who have not only threatened to attack...but also have sponsored attacks on Americans. Not only to fear such attacks...but make preparations to stop them.
You can say you are fear-free, dear boy...but you know as well as the rest of us that your fears run deep.
You fear the fairytale that calls for a War on weather.
We fear a proven threat.
There's an interesting book that came out last year. It's called the "One Percent Doctrine". It looks at how the Bush administration fought every terrorist possibility as if it were 100% certain. Even if in actual fact the likelihood of something happening was only 1%. My question is why don't these conservative fear-mongerers fight for the 1% chance for peace? Why shouldn't we talk to Hamas? The Clinton administration through diplomacy and fuel oil was able to keep Kim Jong il from firing up his nuclear reactors.
If all you see is doom and death EL, maybe you should commit suicide. Get out of the rat race early and beat the apocalypse.
So, Eric, I'm not sure how your response answers my question:
If you think Ahmadinejad is a "madman," what makes you think he would respond to threats with a big stick?
What are you advocating? That we threaten a madman whose people don't trust us already (based on a long history) with destruction?
What am I advocating?
Let's start with your assumption: Ahmadinejad is crazy.
1. Of course, this is a mental diagnosis that we are not able to legitimately ascertain, it's just a guess.
2. But if he IS, then how do you deal with a dangerous madman who is willing to hurt people and be a martyr?
3. From my (few) years in the mental health business, I've learned that you isolate them, try to keep them calm, remove the chances for them to harm.
4. Threatening them with violence is not generally effective. Reasoning may or may not work, depending upon the state of their psychoses. But talking to them is certainly one of the first things you must do.
5. Now, of course, Ahmadinejad - even if he IS crazy - is also a leader of a nation, like it or not. And, like it or not, we need to deal with him thusly, which complicates matters.
6. Still, I think some of the same steps as dealing with a crazy individual apply.
7. we need to isolate him. Not make him a martyr or a hero. Not make ourselves out to be the bad guy, the oppressors, the invaders.
8. We need to try to keep them calm and we need to talk to them reasonably - whether they can be reasoned with or not.
9. We need to remove or reduce the chances for them to cause harm. However, when we're talking about a leader of a sovereign nation, this becomes a bit more tricky.
10. And we certainly need to be talking with him. Not appeasing, but talking, finding out where he can and can't be reasoned with. Where his perceived best interests are. Establish a rapport - even if it is a rapport between enemies.
I think these steps apply whether or not Ahmadinejad is crazy. If he's NOT crazy, then of course, we can fairly well assume that he won't take a direct strike against Israel or us because that's a fight a rational man would know he'd lose. IF he's not pushed into a corner by bad diplomacy and policy.
A further step we can do to deal with despots like Ahmadinejad is for US to obey our own and international laws. When we make the claim to be above int'l law, when we break treaties, etc, we are telling other nations that this is acceptable behavior. It's not.
So, in brief, that's what I would recommend for starters - whether or not Ahmadinejad is crazy and I believe that's the kind of thing that Obama is talking about.
So, for your part, what would you do? What makes you think a madman will respond to threats?
Shouldn't "scientists" be talking to scientists about the War on Weather? I mean...don't you think "scientists" should listen to scientists and see where they are coming from with their skepticism of the need to wage a War on Weather?
Hypocrites! Fearmongers! Warmongers!
Why do you want to make it impossible for the poor to realize the American Dream while those who are already living that dream get to drive around the nation and fly around the world?
I thought you folks were for the little guy! But you advocate creating the largest chasm between the rich and the poor that has EVER existed on this earth through your War on Weather!
First, it was the Clinton Administration that gave N. Korea their nuclear capability in the first place. Secondly, the Clinton Administration created the conditions that allowed 19 terrorists to hijack four planes and slam them into buildings filled with hundreds, and thousands of innocent people.
Dan said "We need to remove or reduce the chances of [Ahmadinejad] to cause harm."
You mean take away his toys and give him a "time-out"? How would we do that? Bomb his nuclear facilities? impose crushing economic sanctions on his country?
Ben asked what proof I had that Iran intended to nuke Israel-- the idea being that Israel's capabilities were far superior to Iran's, ergo, Iran would be foolish in the extreme to attack. This line of thought does not take into account the nature of Islam. They don't believe they can lose, and that any Muslim death results in instantaneous admittance to Paradise. I would ask in return what evidence Ben and Dan had that Iran WOULDN'T attack Israel once they had three or more nukes under their belt?
The idea that Iran hasn't launched conventional weapons on Israel does not take into account that Nukes are not conventional. One to two well-placed nukes could decimate Israel's ability to respond. Does anyone here understand just how small Israel is?
By the way, the White House today denied Israel's report of an attack on Iran by the U.S. But of course they did. Still, our military involvement in the Middleast is far from over. "America" may have tired and lost heart in this so-called War on Terror, but the war hasn't tired of us.
I don't expect either of you to agree. But then I'm not doing this for "agreement."
If you think Ahmadinejad is a "madman," what makes you think he would respond to threats with a big stick?
I've told you what I thought we ought to do (in general terms), WHAT are you proposing?
Also, the tack you and Ben are proposing is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
I hear you say that you're "not proposing we do anything... at present" (a point with which I disagree - we most certainly ought to be doing something and NOW).
But you are also saying "something" should be done. I'm wondering what you're implying should be done soon?
Do you have an idea, or do you just mean that you don't know what should be done, but "something" should be done soon?
If you think Ahmadinejad is a "madman," what makes you think he would respond to threats with a big stick?
Do you understand that no nation could make a nuclear attack like that without expecting a worldwide response (with the possible exception of the US - that is, it is conceivable that WE could nuke a country and get away with it, much to our shame)?
That's what crazy people do.
I douobt that there would be a "worldwide response" if Iran jnuked Israel. Maybe a response from the free-west. But not from Russia. Or China.
Lip-service, perhaps. But hardly a worldwide response considering the hatred you, Dan, and other people who don't think past their noses harbor towards Israel.
I'm not interested in seeing innocents killed, so I'd prefer that a VOA radio broadcast, in western and eastern Farsi, and Arabic, declaring "someone's" intention of bunker-bustering Iran's nuclear facilities saturate Iranian airwaves... give them 24hours to clear the area. And then following through.
But once Iran acquires its first nuke, the rules of engagement change [that was the media's reasoning with N.Korea]. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
What makes me think Ahmadinejad would respond to threats ofa pummeling by "someone's" big stick? Until he acquires his first nuke he'll stall, and stall, promising anything and everything, until his scientists make and test their first nuke (it's foolish to assume that Iran would "test" their first nuke... their second maybe, but not the first). But destroy his facilities and he can't produce his nukes. THAT's why I think he'd acquiesce to the threatening demand of "someone's" big stick. But let me be clear... I do NOT believe he will give anything up, just make it look like he's giving it up. It worked for Saddam, and he knows the West is too weak to tackle the problem of Iranian nukes any differently.
True. Iran could not just launch their own nukes and expect to escape the consequence of their action. But the danger lies not in Iran's ability to launch a nuclear tipped missile, but rather in their ability to "launder" their nukes {just as they do IED's in Iraq) out to terrorist organizations, who could smuggle them into Israel, and drive them up to the Knesset building and, screaming "Allahu Ahkabr!!".......(fade to blinding white)
Obama bringing up talks made by past presidents is misleading.... Roosevelt did not talk to Tojo OR Hitler. Truman did not talk to North Korea, Kennedy did NOT talk to Castro. Johnson did NOT talk to North Vietnam. Nixon talked to China... but then... we were neither attacked by, or at war with, China. Carter talked to the terrorists in Iran, Reagan did not. Neither did Reagan mince words with Gorbachev at Reykjavik. Bush Sr. didn't hold talks with Saddam. As far as I know Clinton didn't hold talks with anyone, but he may as well have when he tucked tail and ran from Somalia... that spoke mightily to bin Laden. I take it back! Clinton spoke with Yassar Arafat, and pushed Ehud Barak into a handshake that has produced... nothing. Bush Jr. took a different tack.
DIM THE LIGHTS! LET'S SEE A MOVIE!
Scene from: Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
Lee: [to aggressive student in a college gymnasium] "Don't touch me!"
Student: "Or what?" [smirking]
Lee: "I'll touch you back..."
Everyone seems to think we need to talk to rouge nations, without preconditions, without expectations. Despite that by doing so we elevate them to pseudo-respectability. Our demand to them should be as Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Reagan... "Give us your complete and unconditional surrender, or else..."
"...we'll touch you back!"
Are we to expect the Iranians to be MORE reasonable? Are Iranians with nukes more reasonable than N. Koreans with nukes? N. Korea just wants to be left alone, it's not looking to spread a faith. Iran wants to kill 7+ million Jews AND spread a faith. Who is more dangerous? Mullahs in possession of nukes? Or weird Mr. Kim?
If the West hesitate too long, we'll discover the answer to that. Question is: Is that an answer we can afford to wait for?
Okay, so you're saying threaten, and then follow through with an attack on a sovereign nation unprovoked.
So, in order to do that, are you suggesting we change our own laws or just break them? We can't stage an attack on another nation based on the fact that they want to have bombs like we do. Not legally.
So, how are you advocating we do this? Change our laws or break them?
And, if you vote for breaking our own laws, will you mind when the rest of us want to prosecute the president for committing war crimes?
As to Bush preparing for war with Iran, it's probably a good idea. But preparations aren't intent for war. A good leader will always determine where the greatest threat is likely to emerge and prepare accordingly. Good for George.
Agreed.
And Dan, I did not say "we." My language may have shifted somewhere in my last comment, but "We" was not my intent. I distinctly remember using the words "someone," and "someone's."
That we would use VOA only suggests that we would know "who" was doing the bunker-busting, and we were merely trying to mitigate unnecessary loss of life.
One can't attack another country unprovoked or based on a hunch that they might be a threat to us one day maybe. It's against the law.
We can't do it, we can't do it by proxy. Israel can't do it. It's illegal.
So, if Israel or some other entity committed war crimes, are you going to support those who demand that justice be done?
To begin living lawlessly because of fear is, well, just the kind of thing that Iran might do. But it's not the American Way.
Don't you agree?
Well, I agree that he would not do what you seem to be suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong) and break our laws, but I think for most of us, we consider that a good thing. It's why Obama has so much support.
The US and the world is tired of Cowboy Presidents who think laws are for other countries to obey. We can't legally attack another country unprovoked or because we don't like their ideas.
Even if they're talking about breaking treaties, that is not a justification for war. After all, WE have broken treaties, does that give other nations the legal right to target us? No, it doesn't.
LOUISVILLE-- A Louisville high school student is in critical condition at a local hospital after another student bludgeoned him in front of Danielsan High with an aluminum baseball bat.
Witnesses claim the attacker, also a student at Danielsan High, had made repeated threats against the victim that the faculty routinely ignored.
Principal Trabue in a statement to the press said the threats were just that, threats.
"We are not prepared to take every idle threat made among students seriously," said Trabue. "Until a student actually assaults another, we are bound law and international treaties to wait until a threat is carried out before stepping in. But if any student does assault another student, that student will be dealt with harshly."
The victim, 16 year-old Jacob Israel, is in the critical care unit at a local hospital suffering from skull fractures, brain trauma, with extensive damage to several major organs. Doctor's are hopeful Israel will come out of his coma, but uncertain he will recover any useful function.
...
May 23, 2008
LOUISVILLE-- Two heavily armed men entered the First Community Bank of Louisville yesterday killing three tellers and two customers before fleeing with an undisclosed amount of money.
When police questioned the plain-closed armed guard as to why he did not attempt to stop the men before they entered the bank, he replied, "just because they were armed and masked didn't mean they intended to rob the bank or kill anyone inside. Until they actually DO something more provocative than enter a bank armed and masked, my hands are tied by both the laws of this nation, and international treaties."
Welcome to Dan's brave new world.
I think this is a reasonable question to ask and receive an answer, given what you seem to have promoted, don't you?
I don't want to suggest you're promoting lawlessness if that is not what you're advocating.
Principal Trabue in a statement to the press said the threats were just that, threats.
Nowhere in anything that I have said have I advocated ignoring threats. I'm advocating dealing with threats in a logical and legal manner.
Now, the flipside of your analogy would be this:
Principal Eric was arrested today and taken to jail. He claims he was merely making a pre-emptive strike against a student who had exhibited dangerous behavior.
"The student threatened another student so I did what I had to," Principal Eric claimed. "I shot him before he could carry out his threat."
Now, shall we dispense of analogies that don't really represent the views of the Other, Eric?
Or do you advocate taking illegal, deadly actions to stop threats at the school-age level, as you seem to be advocating at the international level?
I think not. I'm almost positive you would not advocate shooting a student to pre-emptively stop some possible violence.
I DO think, though, that your analogy shows how deeply flawed your view is - IF I'm understanding your view correctly.
Your's is a moronic analogy, Dan. I never suggested killing anyone, only taking away the aluminum bat, even if you had to hold the kid down to do it...
YOUR view is the very kind that allowed for Columbine... that CONTINUES to allow for tragedy. Just as it led to 9/11.
IS IT YOUR POSITION that you are advocating breaking our own laws?
That SEEMS to be what you're saying, but if not, I apologize for thinking that is what you're suggesting. If you'd answer the question directly, I'd have a better idea of what your position is.
So then, in the case of an out of control student, you WOULDN'T advocate shooting him or otherwise breaking the law to keep your other students safe? That's good, we agree wholeheartedly, then.
I didn't think that was what you were saying (which is why I said, "I'm almost positive you would not advocate shooting a student..." - again, apologies if it sounded to you like I was suggesting this was your postion, it was not my intent.)
Neither would I shoot a student. Nor would I ignore threats as I believe you suggested was my position. Instead, as I have already noted, I would isolate, talk to, de-escalate, remove chances for harm, etc. In other words, I would deal with the threat.
So, wouldn't you think it a mischaracterization of my view that I somehow would allow Columbine? Nothing in anything I've written has suggested that.
In conclusion, since your position at the school level is one OPPOSED to breaking the law in order to keep children safe, is it true then that is your position at the international level? Do you support the US obeying our laws and stand opposed to any president who would advocate breaking our laws or committing war crimes in the name of "safety?"
Anyone here want to answer what seems to me to be a simple and appropriate question?
Ought we obey our laws or is the fear of Iran doing something wrong justification enough to cause us to break our own laws and even to commit war crimes, if our president deems it a good idea?
Laws are created with the expectation that all will abide by them. When dealing with people who respect the laws to which all agree, then any pre-emptive action would indeed be something to avoid.
But now we're dealing with someone who insists it's his destiny to wipe out a race of people. What now? How do we, by staying within our own laws or the laws of foreign nations in agreement, turn back the actions of this madman? If he insists he is the man to bring about the 12th caliphate, that it is his destiny and duty to do so, how is it immoral to take him at his word and act to prevent his plans? I say you are complicit and guilty of every death he causes by adhering to your pie-in-the-sky delusions. Is not the general feeling of the world that developing nuclear weapons is itself immoral? Is it not your own feeling due to the widespread death and destruction it will cause? Can you be any more twisted in your logic? If we take out his production facilities, we are performing a great service to the world, whether the world and goofy people like yourself believe it or not. Here's an asswipe that supports terror, that sends weapons to the people we are fighting which kills our own sons and daughters, that lives for the day Israel is a wasteland (and us as well). And you want to call destroying his capabilities a warcrime? You are one sick individual. Risk your family if you want to. Allow the rest of us more sensible people with open eyes to protect ours.
Hey, here's a thought: How about if we change our laws? I doubt that would change you mind. Since laws are so sancrosanct, how about if we bring back those slavery laws? Laws that prevent us from self-defense are laws meant to be broken.
Why is that a hard question to answer? I'm honestly wanting to know.
Seems like if you think thusly, you could easily say, "Yes, I think we should break our own laws if we think another nation is a danger."
So yes. I'm in favor of breaking our own laws if doing so puts down a real threat, which I believe Iran is doing its best to become under Mahmoud and the Mullahs. Hopefully, we can help pro-American Iranians depose him first.
It's difficult to consider every possibility when crafting law, and it's not always possible to wait until changes in the law take place in order to do what's right. So Dan, I hope I've answered your question.
Now here's one for you. What's an example of the practical application of the following:
"Within the bounds of morality and our own law, says I."
I know you listed a 10 point plan, but this isn't some homeless guy ranting and raving on the street. This is, as you acknowledge, the leader of a country. While you're talking and trying to find where it is we can reason with him, he's carrying on his plans. Talking with him all the while is just him buying time to finish his plans. Just how would your imaginings look in the real world?
What would I do? Just as I said, but more indepth.
It all depends on the situation and the details.
Is Ahmadinejad closer to the nutso he portrays himself when he claims he wants to see Israel wiped off the map or is he closer to the more reasonable man who explains, "What I meant by that was that I want the people of that area to be able to vote for their leadership - Israelis, Palestinians - making their own choices."? (Not his exact words, but his explanation has been along those lines).
Which Ahmadejine are we dealing with? We discover this by talks, by intelligence, by investigation, by planning.
The "talks" aren't merely to sit around and chat with a bad guy. The purpose is to establish rapport, to discover their interests, their needs, their threat and plan accordingly.
If we want to try to establish and maintain treaties and int'l agreements, then we have to lead the way in following them. We can't reasonably expect Iran to not develop arms just because the US tells them not to. In fact, it is in their interests to stand up to that sort of belligerent US. It gives them credibility and strength in the world.
So the belligerent Bush way is playing right into what Ahmadinejad is wanting. We need to be smarter than that.
So, in the end, it might look like how we brought down apartheid in S. Africa - by wisely using economic power to influence change against an evil system that in and of itself was not interested in change.
As Thomas Jefferson noted:
War is not the best engine for us to resort to; nature has given us one in our commerce, which, if properly managed will be a better instrument for obliging the interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice... Our object should now be to... endeavor so to form our commercial regulations as that justice from other nations shall be their mechanical result.
The thing is, we have to wisely plan and inform ourselves and talk with the Other in order to be able to choose the best approach.
I'll assume that you'd agree that if your fellow Americans did not want to go along with that sort of thinking, you'd acquiesce to the will of the people, or support sending any leaders who did thusly break the law to jail as the due consequence of their crimes?
I wonder, if President Obama thought it a matter of national security that we destroy Israel's nuclear abilities, if you'd also support that, even if it were against the laws?
Or in other words, where do you support breaking the laws and, once we've established that precedent, is it okay for any one or any nation to break laws based on fears of what might possibly happen if they didn't break the law?
It sounds like a fearful lawless world you are advocating, from where I sit.
As a further thought, it sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) that some think that our laws make us weak and our morality makes us threatened. If we abide by the rules and by morality, it seems some are saying, then we will be at a disadvantage from those who'd ignore rules or morality. Is that your position, anyone?
For my part, I think playing by the rules and by moral guidelines is what makes us strong. Fear is what would induce us to break rules and morality and that can only lead to no good.
Would president Obama try such a thing he would show himself to be just as evil as Ahmadinejad himself: a tool of the devil. America would never recover from such a president.
But you tell me if I'm reading you correctly.
If so, though, then how - once you've set the precedent that our president can break laws at will, do you say it's right in the case of Iran but not right in the case of Israel. You've already said (or at least Marshall has said) that the RULE is: IF our president fears the nation might be a possible threat, then it is okay. If that's the rule we've allowed our presidents to live by, then how will you reign it in once the president has chosen a country that you disagree with?
That's the problem with moral relativism, or one of them, is that might makes right is great as long as the Might is striking targets you don't like, but then becomes less great when Might is striking a target you disagree with.
One reason I disagree with that sort of moral relativism. Better that we should say it's ALWAYS wrong to attack a country unprovoked.
Dan and others take offense when pundits make mention of Barack's middle name, yet in the same breath [rhetorically speaking] present a scenario where a man who's father was Muslim, is deciding that Israel is more of a menace than Iran... Could it be said of such a man that his faith heritage did NOT play a role in such a decision? How could anyone who spent twenty years in the pews of one church come to that kind of conclusion about Israel? What would such a decision say about the teachings of Jeremiah Wright?
I understand that Dan merely presented a hypothetical, but still...... I do not know Barack Obama to say I like him as a person. But I know enough of what he believes to know I don't like his politics OR his grasp of spiritual truth.
But this is leading to a post all its own so I'll end my thoughts here.
There's your answer.
Laws are broken each and every day, and no one is ever held to account. There are just laws and there are unjust laws. This nation has a plethora of both. Pick your poison Dan, everyone else does. The Government does. Our representatives do. Our senators, our city councilmen. But to my mind it is a greater crime-- being fully cognizant of what Israel has endured --to not take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously. Surely you know the animosity the exists between Israel and Islam?
What then is the greater crime? For which crime would you rather serve a prison sentence? The one where you did NOTHING to stop one country from obliterating another? Or that you broke laws to preserve seven-plus million Israeli citizens from an ideology that does not respect human dignity?
If I had to stand before God, I would rather have defended Israel than not.
EVERY president has broken the law while in office. And every one of them has gotten away with it. But you obviously hold Bush to a much higher standard than all the others?
But again, I have to ask: Is it better to stand before God having defended Israel from men like Ahmadinejad? Or to have sat by blaming man-made laws that prevented you from acting?
Oskar Schindler-- Whether he was saved or not, do you think God was displeased that he lied, bribed, and broke laws to preserve more than 1,200 Jews from all but certain death in a Nazi death-camp?
If I said something to make you think this, I apologize. I never said that directly and it was not my intent to suggest that only this president has broken the law.
Other presidents have certainly committed bad, questionably legal acts. But I'm sure you'll agree with me that the fact that others have done something does not make it right.
The one where you did NOTHING to stop one country from obliterating another? Or that you broke laws to preserve seven-plus million Israeli citizens from an ideology that does not respect human dignity?
I'll apologize again if I've said anything at all that would make you think I think a president ought to do "nothing" in face of dangers. That was not my intent and it is why I have repeatedly stated that I am most certainly 100% opposed to "doing nothing."
I certainly think we ought to take actions that help preserve Israeli lives, Iraqi lives, Iranian lives, US lives, etc. I don't think we ought to necessarily do anything especially for Israel that we wouldn't do for some other nation, though.
And so, if an attack was going on against Israel or Afghanistan or Rwanda, I'd hope our president and the world community would take actions to assist in ending the bloodshed. BUT, if our president thought that maybe Israel or Iran MIGHT possibly be a threat to some other nation, I don't advocate making a preemptive attack based on guesswork. That would be evil.
We are not wise or omniscient enough to know that someone is going to attack based on a hunch in our hearts.
Again, I agree with Thomas Jefferson and others who say that we have better, more effective ways of dealing with possible threats and I agree with Abraham Lincoln that to give a president the power to attack a nation based on fear alone is a horrible idea.
I'll ask again, IF we give the power to a president to wage preemptive strikes on any nation based on possible fears of what might happen, where will we draw the line? Who do our presidents get to attack and when is it wrong for him to attack, if all they need to base it on is the fear of what might happen.
I believe that historically, the US and Israel have shown themselves to be brave nations and we do not approve of lightly attacking nations based on possible fears.
So what rules, what guidelines are you asking nations to follow? And is it good for other nations to do as you're advocating we do? If Iran thinks we might attack them (and it wouldn't be without reason), would they be morally correct to attack us first because they fear we might attack?
It seems to me to be a fair question (now that you're advocating the US break laws and even commit war crimes if it deems it necessary) to ask, what guidelines will we have for when our nation breaks laws? Or is it just all up for grabs?
Could it be said of such a man that his faith heritage did NOT play a role in such a decision? How could anyone who spent twenty years in the pews of one church come to that kind of conclusion about Israel?
HOOOOOLLLLDDD ON! I did not say President Obama would ever consider such a thing and it is horrible to take such a suggestion seriously. Obama is exactly opposed to the sort of pre-emptive attacks against ANY nation that has characterized this current president.
I offered that as a suggestion to point out that once you have set up a rule ("You can attack another nation based on fear of what they might do") then you might regret it when a later president uses your rule in ways you don't like. AGAIN, my point was that this is the problem with this sort of moral relativism.
It is better that we agree that the US does not attack other nations based on fear of what they might do. That we agree that the US military is a defensive military for defending the US, not for military adventurism around the globe. This is exactly one of the great dangers our founding fathers warned us of.
I apologize for placing Obama's name in that scenario, I intended it to show how bad the idea is and how wrong this sort of moral relativism is, not in order to encourage you to think that Obama would do something that he would not do, that is not in his character or words, that is OPPOSED to his Christian point of view.
Brothers and sisters, this is a brother in Christ we are talking about. Please, let's end this demonization of those in the fellowship. At the very least, pray sincerely and for a long time before making such statements, asking for God's guidance on how we talk about others in the faith.
"...this is a brother in Christ we are talking about."
You cannot say WHAT Obama would or would not do anymore than I can. You cannot say what is or is not in his character. Nor can you say with any degree of certainty what is or is not in opposition to his Christian point of view. Suffice it say many folk do not believe Obama IS Christian.
For my part, Obama has not proven he IS my brother in Christ, and that lack of proof does not lie in the fact of his 20-year tenure under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. Rather, it has everything to do with his stance on abortion and the protections for the unborn and survivors of the procedure he voted against.
Because of his stance on abortion I CAN say his character is flawed to the point that lives in gestation have no inherent value except to those who want them. When "value" is determined by something as ephemeral as "want..." we're ALL at risk. I may not value Dan Trabue [please note that I said "may"] but that doesn't mean he doesn't have value.
When an unborn child is snuffed out by abortion, the world does not simply lose a mewling hungry mouth in the arms of a mother who cannot afford to feed it, much less want it, but the world loses every hope and dream that mewling hungry mouth would ever dream, and perhaps bring to fruition.
Is any man among us wise enough to say such a child has no value? Every man or woman who sides in favor of abortion, in my well-versed opinion, is not only deeply flawed in their character, but unwise to boot. I am not impressed with Barack Obama for this reason alone [though there are plenty more reasons I am equally unimpressed by].
That may sound unChristian to you, but Obama is either no Christian at all, or one in complete rebellion to the principles of Christian love.
I hate to break this to you Dan, but just because a man [or woman] claims to be a Christian doesn't make it so... Politicians in particular. Take them at their word only to the point that they demonstrate the falseness of their claim to fellowship... or prove it. And for the Abortion question alone, to my mind, he has NOT proven it.
If Obama is Christian, then he has never managed to get beyond the bottle stage of his spiritual growth, which makes trusting his decision on matters of faith foolish at best.
'''''
Now, I don't want this comment to sidetrack this discussion. Respond if you feel the need, but I'll not go back and forth with you here-- we've been there, and done that. And it hasn't achieved us anything.
My point is, and will remain, "Human law is not sacrosanct," they routinely change or fall into disrepair or ill repute
Clinton ignored the genocide in Rwanda. The world ignored Rwanda. The world ignored the Kmer Rouge. The world Hitler until it was almost too late. The world is ignoring Sudan. Shall we add Iran to the list? To America's shame we GAVE North Korea nuclear technology, shall we allow Iran to achieve the same? If "yes," will America be culpable for the nukes Iran sells to terrorists? Will we be culpable if any of those nuke detonate in America? Israel? England?
You may be comfortable with that, but I am not.
"The world IGNORED Hitler... yada, yada..."
"Human law is not sacrosanct"
In terms of abortion, God willing, this too shall pass.
Or, if it is to protect specifically Israel, then anything is okay?
What rules are you advocating?
If you're going to advocate that a president be free to commit war crimes, it is a fair question to ask what rules you have for when the president commits war crimes?
Or does it even need to be a president that makes the call? If a general thinks a bomb ought to be dropped somewhere because he fears something might happen down the road, is that good enough?
What rules are you advocating?
A few problems with your thinking. The first, and Eric may have been referring to it in one of his latest comments, is that law and morality are equal. Of course this is not true. I refer once again to the our past views on slavery. Rosa Parks might also debate you on this point. Whatever our laws are, or whatever int'l laws might be, a given situation might provoke an action in conflict with the law, but be the absolutely moral choice to make. So the question is whether or not the action considered would be the moral choice regardless of what the law says. In the case of Mahmoud, to prevent this guy from getting nukes is by far the moral path even if it means transgressing whatever laws you think would normally restrain us.
Next, the use of the term "war crimes" is very subjective. Again, the greater moral good must be considered. In any case, whether an action is a war crime is determined after the fact, because the world would be made aware of all the reasons and evidences in support of the action taken before the term would be applied.
Next, your use of the term "moral relativism". It's pretty plain to anyone paying attention that Mahmoud supports that which we fight. There is no moral relativism here whatsoever. To equate what he might do to what Bush might do is partisan rhetoric that has no place in serious discussion. There is no comparison between the two men.
Next, the idea that Bush has ever acted because he "thought" there was a threat or because he merely "feared" there was a threat. This attitude also is partisan smearing. There is nothing to suggest that he ever acted in such a willy-nilly fashion. It's no secret you don't like him. It's no secret that the left in general hates him and accuses him of many things. The left has been loathe to support any of these allegations with real facts or evidence. That some military people have disagreed always, to the left, means that Bush didn't listen to "experts" or that he acted in spite of the most perfect advice, as if there were no experts that supported the actions that were taken. Just as we now have captured documents that justify Bush's position about Iraq and Hussein's plans, we know that it was that he acted at all that upsets the left. He did more than just talk about how bad Hussein was, like his predecessor did, like most of the Dems who now whine on did.
Finally, that Obama's alleged Christian faith is worthy of more respect than that which has been given to Bush for his is simply contemptable. ER has stated at this blog that Bush "believes he is literally on a mission from God" or words to that effect. This is tripe. But, guess what? We are all on a mission from God to always do the right thing regardless of the opinions of others. I think it's clear that Bush has always acted in such a manner, yet he's attacked as arrogant and unconcerned with the "will of the people".
I reject accusations that he has broken any laws until he has been convicted of doing so. There has been no unanimous SCOTUS decisions, there has been no courts of any kind convicting him.
I never said otherwise. We are in agreement. Law and morality are not always equal.
Sometimes they may be. In the case of invading countries based on fears of what they might do maybe someday, I think our American ideals, our faith systems and our own humanity for the majority of us in the US and around the world would cause us to think that yes, in this case, invading countries under those circumstances is wrong.
There is no comparison between the two men.
Never said there was. We are in agreement on that point.
It doesn't change the fact that it is moral relativism when you say, "well sometimes we ought to invade countries based on the fear that they might be a threat someday and sometimes we ought not. And always, other countries that we don't like ought not do it."
That is moral relativism by definition.
the use of the term "war crimes" is very subjective. Again, the greater moral good must be considered.
Could be. But not always. War crimes has some fairly specific definitions attached to it. Torture is a war crime. Targeting and killing civilians is a war crime. Assassinations are crimes (I'm not sure that they are a war crime, but it's certainly illegal).
Invading a nation with no provocation beyond fear of what they might do may be a bit subjective, but if a country were to do it to us, I guarantee we'd all be in agreement that it was a an act of war. Which brings us back to the moral relativism of what you all appear to be advocating.
Perhaps you can clear things up by defining what exactly rule(s) exactly you're promoting. You've both already said you're advocating ignoring our own laws, so what rules are you advocating?
Who can invade a country when they are not being attacked? For what reason?
The rule that you seem to be advocating is this:
A nation can invade and bomb another sovereign nation if the first nation fears the second nation might be a threat to yet a third nation at some point in the future.
Is that the rule you want to suggest we live by? And is it a rule you want everyone to live by?
Clinton ignored the genocide in Rwanda. The world ignored Rwanda. The world ignored the Kmer Rouge. The world ignored Hitler until it was almost too late. The world is ignoring Sudan.
I agree, it is wrong for us to ignore these actions. You and I are in agreement on this point. As I have said repeatedly, I am by no means advocating doing nothing.
But what rules and policies shall we embrace so that we can effectively deal with these sorts of problems? This is my question, now that you all are saying that our regular war crimes rules can be ignored if we choose because of fear of what might happen, what rules and policies are you advocating that will help stop the types of problems we've had/are having in Rwanda, Sudan, Germany, etc?
This is where, I think, Just Peacemaking Theory makes the most sense, even for those who aren't pacifists.
Just Peacemaking Theory does not embrace pacifism directly, but rather advocates ways to deal with problems like you've mentioned in effective, realistic manner without resorting to war, which simply doesn't always - can't always - work.
I mean, we've had presidents who believe in war all along and they've not prevented the Rwandas and Sudans happening and they only were able to stop Germany at a cost of tens of millions of lives - mostly civilian, if my memory serves correctly.
What rules are you advocating?
1. We all agree that no one thinks we ought to do nothing about oppression or potentially dangerous gov'ts.
2. We all agree that we don't want our president to be free to randomly torture or drop nukes on whoever he/she wants for whatever reasons he/she wants.
3. Therefore, it seems logical that we ought want some sort of rules in place for how and when we commit acts of aggression.
4. I've made clear that I am (mostly) fine with our existing laws on this regard - we ought not assassinate leaders, we ought not stage coups or otherwise trifle with other sovereign nations, we ought not drop bombs on other nations unless congress has declared war, etc.
We can, conversely, engage in diplomatic actions and economic actions in regards to other nations, although we should do so prudently, conservatively if we do. We can also use our military for actual defense of aggressive actions.
5. What rules do you want for our leaders to have when considering, for instance, what to do about Iranian leader Ahmadinejad?
You purposely insist on framing this around some fantastical notion that Bush acted on unsupported fears and continues to do so. You have no support for this position whatsoever. I insist that the logical position must include the notion that someone in his position has far more intelligence that do we in determining when and how to act. The intel may suck, but unless he has some assurances to the contrary, he is entrusted with the responsibility to act when everything says the time is ripe. So please refrain from continuing this nonsense. I do NOT condone acting on personal fears. I do NOT believe that Bush ever has. You do NOT know otherwise or even have anything to support such.
I also resent your use of the term torture, since you and those on your side of the issue are loathe to define the word. Waterboarding is NOT torture in the classical sense of the word. If anything that makes the subject uncomfortable is classified as torture, then let us all just shoot ourselves now and be done with it. I maintain that talk of torture by the left in this manner is simply another manifestation of Bush hatred, and as such is not worthy of consideration. When you're willing to define the term and give specific examples, then we'll discuss torture.
This is all for now as I wish to check out your link before continuing, should Eric allow for it.
As to rules, I too believe most rules on the books now are sufficient in guiding action between nations, provided each nation lives to seek peace amongst nations. How we act with rogue nations is another matter altogether. With them, rules don't count. Against them, rules tie our hands and make us vulnerable. Nothing is off the table when dealing with such nations. That is another rule at the top of the list. More later.
I do NOT condone acting on personal fears. I do NOT believe that Bush ever has.
I apologize if I've given you the idea that Bush is acting on unsupported fears. I never said that and it was not my intention to suggest such.
All I have said and intended is that you and Eric are talking about invading countries based on fears of what might happen.
If you'll look on this page, you'll see that I have not mentioned Bush one time. I'm talking about what you two are advocating, because you two are the ones advocating ignoring our laws and committing possible war crimes.
Does that clear up your first misconception?
So, we have a president in charge - perhaps President McCain (let's fantasize here) - and McCain thinks that Israel might be a threat to Iran and thinks that Israel has demonstrated itself to be a rogue nation and, against them rules are useless.
So McCain decides to nuke Israel to prevent any possible threat they may have posed.
By your reasoning, this is all good. Am I correct? Aren't you saying that you're willing to leave it to our president to make the call as to which nations have demonstrated themselves to be rogue nations and, that being the case, we can discard the rules and so it is okay for McCain to nuke Israel.
Where have I misunderstood you?
Or, taken another way, Russia and the EU decides that the US has proven itself to be a rogue nation and decides to nuke us in order to stop our possible threat. By your reasoning, this is all good, right?
I also resent your use of the term torture, since you and those on your side of the issue are loathe to define the word.
It's a bit off-topic, but it doesn't really matter much if you resent my use of the word, torture and I have always used the standard definition of torture, as has anyone I know about...
torture: 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information
2. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind
You may "maintain" that the Left talks about torture out of Bush hatred all you wish, but we all know that one person thinking something and that being reality are not one in the same, right?
So, does that clear up those misconceptions?
1. We ought to obey our US laws - ie, we ought not torture, we ought not engage in war crimes, invade countries based on fears of what they might do in the future.
2. HOWEVER, Following our laws depends upon the notion that the other country must not be a "rogue nation" (as defined by whom? I wonder).
3. If (I assume) our president decides that another nation is a "rogue nation," (meaning our president has decided that this other country is not willing to abide by US rules?), then our president doesn't have to abide by any rules. Our president can take any actions he or she wishes.
Marshall (or Eric) is that a fair representation of what you believe? And it might help if you clarify who is making these decisions as to who is and isn't a rogue nation and what counts as a "rogue nation."
Waterboarding is NOT torture in the classical sense of the word.
Really? Says who?
From the Washington Post:
Waterboarding, after all, has been recognized as a torture technique since the time of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. soldiers who were caught using it on enemy insurgents in the Philippines, in 1901, or the Vietnam War, in 1968, were prosecuted. When suffocation by water was used by foreign governments, such as the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, the State Department didn't hesitate to call it torture.
If being drowned doesn't sound like torture to you, feel free to engage in it for fun. For most of us, if we were forcibly drowned (but not to death), we would nonetheless recognize it as obviously torture.
The fact that you don't die from it doesn't make it unpainful or not torture.
We can debate whether or not the war in Iraq is legal. By even the strictest interpretation of Congress' 2001 authorization to president Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..." this current conflict in Iraq is quite legal. But the Constitution is vague on at least one point: Article One Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to... declare War;" however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
The President's powers are not as vague in this regard as Congress offered on September 14, 2001, the functional equivalent of a "Declaration of War". But since the Constitution does not provide that those exact words are even necessary, the debate of rules in this regard is therefore unnecessary... functionally moot. The president can send troops into any engagement that seeks to protect American interests and American citizens, and he doesn't need a declaration of war. What he does need is Congressional support to fund the engagement beyond the immediate threat. Example: Reagan's snap invasion of Grenada.
So yes, Bush can send troops wherever they are needed for X number of days, without Congress. He does have to justify their continued presence beyond the honeymoon.
Now, do I extend this rule to future presidents? Of course. Would I be visibly, emotionally, and spiritually upset to see, say, president Obama attack Israel?
Do I really have to answer that?
But beyond this rule, the Geneva Convention covers just about everything else.
Your other hypotheticals are not worthy of discussion at this time because:
a) the United States of America is NOT a terrorist-sponsoring nation, nor is itself a rogue nation.
b) the United States of America does not attack arbitrarily, willy-nilly, any nation to rob them of their dignity, liberty, or natural resources. When America invades, it does so to protect its own borders, national interests, or those of its allies, or to put an end to roguery... as in the first and second Barbary wars.
For some perspective, there has only been in the entire history of the United States of America 5 FORMAL declarations of war. There has been 12 military engagements (wars or mini-wars) authorized by Congress (including Afghanistan and Iraq). And there have been over 125 instances where the president sent troops into harms way WITHOUT prior express military authorization from Congress; to include Korea (1950), the Philippine-American War (1898-1903), and Nicaragua (1927). And I don't recall hearing of any overt challenges against the president for supposed "War-Crimes."
This whole War-Crimes issue is founded entirely upon one segment of society's intense dislike of President George W. Bush. The anti-war, peace-at-any-price crowd.
As for Iran. Iran may be a sovereign nation but it is a rogue nation. Iran trains Iraqi militia and sends them back across the border with weapons that kill not only American soldiers and support personnel, but Iraqi troops and civilians. That is an act of war.
Are we at war with Iran? According to the wording of the September 14, 2001 Joint Resolution, Yes.
The real question ought to be: Do we want to "actively" engage Iran in Iran? We're already engaging their agents and weapons in Iraq. The only difference would be location and escalation.
. . . . .
Peace is a lovely ideal; one for which we should all strive. But we cannot lower our guard. Not all nations desire to live in peace with the world. Not all nations respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam, for all it means "submission" cares nothing for submitting to the rule of western law, and therefore does not respect its neighbor's or the world's sovereign borders. Islam's "submission" is the attitude Islam's neighbor's and the world must adopt to have peace (and a pseudo one at that) with Islam.
Is the U.S. readying for an Attack on Iran? I sure hope so! Not to invade arbitrarily, but to have a plan on the table should no one else be willing to take the bomb out of Islam's hands.