Saturday, July 14, 2012

Iran: The Deciding Conflict

While the average American can tolerate the legal slaughter of thirty-five hundred innocent children every day, a government that spends more than it has and demands people to buy products or else get taxed, and a culture that thinks that a guy marrying a guy is normal, one thing we have a hard time tolerating is a lack of national defense.

This is, of course, a major plus for Republicans, since we are big advocates for American supremacy on a global field.

But what happens when we are faced with conflict, and there is no Republican there to hate the enemy and give him war? What happens when a country like Iran, which is run by insane but cunning muslim radicals who live for the purpose of making righteous war against anyone who disagrees with their rediculous ideologies, goes nuclear and threatens to wipe us and our allies of the face of the planet?

How about diplomacy? Sorry, buddy, that's not going to work. One thing many people do not understand about middle eastern mentality is that there is no effectiveness in negotiation. They laugh at people who make deals with their enemies. The only thing we've accomplished is making them think we're complete idiots. They aren't too far from the truth in that respect.

So what do we do? I guess we just try more and more diplomacy until Iran has finished laughing their heads off and actually starts killing people. Then, I guess we'll blame Republicans for not acting sooner.

Or, we can give Israel the thirty-thousand bunker buster bombs they have been asking for, maybe even a few B1's and B2's to help the process along. A quick, snappy operation to get Iran on its knees, and we won't have to worry all the time about, "when will Iran strike?"

Of course, that probably won't be attempted until it's too late.

Basically, we have a choice. We can defend ourselves and our strongest ally, Israel, against the worst potential enemy since Japan in the 1940's, or we can sit on our tushes and be anti-racist, loving people who are oblivious of the coming destruction. If Obama stays true to his own, he could settle part of a century long argument: which is best for America: Conservatives, or Liberals?

Isaiah Taylor

"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb


  1. While you put up a good argument I have to disagree completely with your conclusions. If we were to attack Iran just based on the threat, it would give them the opening that they needed to attack because they could justify it as self-defence. Also, how would the world react? Russia and China would be furious, along with many of our allies.

    Instead, take your cue from the Cuban Missile Crisis. The crisis was resolved when JFK, who was a DEMOCRAT, NEGOTIATED, and kept our shores safe. So negotiation does work whether you are a Conservative or a Liberal.

  2. Anonymous,
    I do understand what an impact it would have on a global arena, but we would not be directing the attack. We would merely be giving them some materials which they could use as they please, which is not a reason for Iran to directly attack us.

    Another aspect if this that you have to get is that Iran is all radical muslim. Their mindset is attack. At some point in history, they will attempt to obliterate Israel and the United States. Read the transcrips from the UN meetings, every speech that the Leader of Iran makes has something to do with wiping Iran off the face of the planet. They will strike, and I'd rather have them strike while we're expecting it.

    And in the meantime, do all the sactions and embargos we can muster, pump as many agents as we can into the country, do as many cyber attacks as we can, you get th point. When one country threatens to wipe another country off the face of the planet with nuclear weapons, it's a big deal.
    I'd much rather have a nuke get intercepted over the ocean that was launched in retaliation to Israeli attacks on Iran than a Nuke exploding over our heads because the Iranians have completed their weapons without our knowledge.

  3. Here's the problem with that theory. If we are giving weapons to Israel than Iran will target us so that Israel won't keep getting support from us. Thus by taking out the supply line, Israel is an easy target.

    Also, the only way to accurately expect an attack is to provoke an attack. If Iran were to find that we are expecting an attack, they might just wait and let the suspense of impending doom get to us. so that when we let our guard down we are easy pickings. The theory worked during the Cold War. America was getting all prepared for Armageddon and it never came.

    Are we really willing to send more troops to the middle east? America is getting tired of this war. We would prefer some R&R before fighting again.

    Will Iran attack eventually? Yes. It is called WWIII and I would rather wait until after the rapture to start it.

  4. Great post, Isaiah. What anonymous misunderstands is that the problem you're highlighting didn't just show up. I know this is an old thread, almost two months old, but I want to say that American supremacy is more than just blowing our enemies up. We consume a third of the world's goods by our own choice. America is could be self-sufficient and cut trade with any country instantly. America can have its way and never apologize. It's only when others provoke us that *we* apologize.

    The solution to the Middle East is one George Washington understood in the 1700s: never form a permanent dependence on another country, or, never borrow from them. We don't have to send troops in any time we want to control. When our domestic defense stays strong, our offense abroad is all the more powerful.

    1. Hey Matthew, It's great to hear from you again!

      Sorry I did not respond sooner, but I didn't see your comment until now.

      I'm not really understanding your solution here. You point out that American Supremacy is more than blowing up enemies, which is true. But what, then, is the solution? The threat is their, looming in front of us. There's no question about that. So it is hard to take generalizations like

      "never form a permanent dependence on another country, or, never borrow from them. We don't have to send troops in any time we want to control. When our domestic defense stays strong, our offense abroad is all the more powerful."

      The point of my article was that they don't care about the fact that

      "America is could be self-sufficient and cut trade with any country instantly."

      They are set and intent on killing us and our ally Israel, and if we sit on our hands they will succeed.

      Which would you rather be: the one who looks at the enemy and says, "I'm strong enough." and goes back to sleep, or the one that says, "I think I'm strong enough, but I need to keep getting stronger and be proactive"



All comments are subject to moderation. I reserve the right to alter or remove any comment for any purpose including profanity.