Spencer on CNN Headline News

I'd venture that Ahmadinejad is not interested in destroying Jerusalem. He's counting on a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv being visible from Jerusalem, which is not all that far from TA and sits at a significantly higher elevation.

Hi Robert! First of all I have to say that I appreciate the work that you are doing at Jihad Watch in helping to raise public awareness of the reality of the Islamist threat. Having said that though I liken this crisis to the Red Scare following World War II and the Cold War that followed. It is something we can overcome and defeat without being dragged into a global war if we manage the situation intelligently. With that thought in mind I can summarize my reaction to the anxiety about the date August 22 in two little words: “Don’t panic”! Besides, we’re told that terrorists want us to do exactly that - panic.

First of all, Brian Whitaker at the Guardian notes that Amadinejhad did not use the word “August” but an approximate equivalent (not an exact one, mind you), “Mordad”, a month on the Persian calendar. August 22 just happens to be the last day of this month (this year at any rate) and elsewhere I read that it also happens to be the last day of the current year on that calendar. We all know that dates like the last day of a month or of a year are often used as benchmarks, including such things as deadlines.

Secondly, since the suggestion of a link to the anniversary of Mohammed’s reputed flight to Jerusalem on the winged horse Buraq, and the inference that Ahmedinejhad therefore intends to “light up the sky over Jerusalem”, is known to come from Farid Ghadry, a political leader in Syria, a country with a staunchly secularist government, opposed to Islamic theocracy, there is clearly a political agenda behind this interpretation. Clearly a lot of people, including politicians, as well as Dr. Lewis, are reading a great deal into the facts, probably far more that is reasonable. Besides, Iran almost certainly doesn’t even have any nuclear weapons at this point!

Besides all this, one could hardly expect any government in Iran’s situation faced with making a decision about an issue of such massive strategic significance as whether or not to develop a nuclear weapons program, to make such a decision in haste. For that matter, neither would the U.S. government, if it found itself in such circumstances. Since this is something the Iranian leadership stands to lose face over, it’s to be expected that they’re going to want to at least have control of the timing of their decision and its announcement. The extension of the June 28 deadline may also be a function of the decision making processes within the Iranian government.

Finally, I have to say that if the rumours that the Bush administration still considers Dr. Lewis an important adviser on the Middle East are actually true, and this is the kind of paranoia that he’s feeding them, I find that just as scary as the nutcase regime in Iran. One thing the world does not need, and that will definitely make things worse, rather than better, is for the Bush administration, blinded by panic over ridiculous rumors, to launch another pre-emptive war in the Middle East. In the long run the defeat of the Islamist threat is going to depend far more on building bridges and building mutual trust with sensible Muslims (of which there are more than enough) than on military operations (though I do not say that we should overlook preparation for the latter when necessary).

So my advice to everyone is “Calm down!“ With a regime like the one in Tehran anything its impossible to rule out anything, but in general, assuming that western powers do not launch some hair-brained action against Iran that would turn it into another mess like Iraq (in fact it would probably be far worse) apart from hearing Iran’s response to the West’s proposals in the way one would normally expect (if they haven’t already provided it before that date) we can expect August 22 to come and go just like any other date on the calendar.

Robert,

Thanks for the posting of the interview. Could the August 22nd date really mean that Iran will inform the world of its intentions? The only real possibility of Iran having a nuke sooner would be if it bought one from North Korea.

Hyperparanoid conspiracy theory: why halt Iran's nuclear program when it's likely that their first target will be Israel?

Well, hopefully not.

As far as Iran definitively NOT having nukes.....isn't there questions about whether all the soviet-era nukes are accounted for?

As far as Iran definitively NOT having nukes.....isn't there questions about whether all the soviet-era nukes are accounted for?

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at August 13, 2006 05:16 PM

Unfortunately, there are probably ex-Soviet nukes all over the world, in the hands of God only knows who.

Thanks for including the video clip. This is the first time that I have heard Robert on television and he is as clear a communicator as in his books.

If you have read Nuclear Terrorism you know that there are so many loose nukes that it is entirely possible for this scenario to happen, and not just from a state like Iran.

It was suggested that Reagan as a christian was going to fulfil his belief in the apocalypse and cause a nuclear war, but that didn't happen, so cross fingers this won't either.

Robert, great presentation. I am concerned the commentator used the word "nut job" so much, mostly about himself it seems. Is he considered a credible journalist/presenter in the USA?

Templar, the fact that you quote the Guardian disqualifies the content of the quote. Of course the Guardian will have a useful idiot say that Madhat didn't really mean August 22. Which in turn, means we shouldn't get all excited and take out Iran's leadership. The Guardian would spin anything to downplay the danger of an islamic state. Let's just stay calm and let Madhat nuke us when he's ready.

Secondly, if you watched the clip, you will see why it is not logical to treat Iran like we treated the Soviet Union, which is what you suggest. This is not like the Red Scare. The scare may be the same, but the motives of the bad guy are not.

Iran was given an ultimatum that was to expire two months ago. All they had to say was yes or no to stopping nuclear enrichment. Madhat, a man who has said that the end of the world is at hand, just this year, said that he would answer that question on a date which corresponds to August 22. Why?

Why not just say, NO, we refuse this ultimatum? Why say, We will have an answer for you in two months, on the date of the end of Mordad? Just what do you think he has in mind for the end of Mordad?

Panic is one thing. Resolute action is not panic. This is like saying in August 1939, "Let's not panic. Hitler isn't going to do anything. Let's not start a war for nothing." Lots of people advised that course of action. You are in league with them, those forever damned by history.

History repeats itself and it repeats itself for two reasons:

1.Bad guys always come around
2.The naive are always in positions of power to greet them.

History is a cycle because human nature remains fixed.

Yes, I noticed he said NUTJOB way too many times. He is not an eloquent man. I'm afraid that Glenn is not serious enough for this topic. I think it's great that he is talking about this, but his delivery style, all smiles and self-effacing jest, is hardly appropriate for the gravity of the subject.

August22

Glen Beck is well informed about Jihad and Muslim taqiyya, hudnas and August 22nd. He has definitely increased Aug22 concern in the US public. Glenn has discussed Aug22 extensively on his radio show.

Glenn is not all clown

I criticized his demeanor, not his knowledge, whatever that may be.

The aytolla: "we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom."
+++++++++++++========

It appears that there is only two choices with islam, they annihilate the western civilizations or the wester civilizations annihilate them.

This one is simple, the western civilizations will endure.

Aug22
Glen's demeanor is hard to take sometimes. He adds humor and light touch to keep the ratings up and they are up. Most political talk show are down in the rating in the last 2 years

We just had a major terror bust in London...If it had been successful what would America and London look like on Aug 22...And are more attacks planned before Aug 22...we are dealing with a cunning Enemy....Never forget that.

It does take a great deal of cunning to watch western TV (The Grid, MI5, etc.), read our textbooks, attend our schools- a lot of us are cunning, but world destruction just isn't high on our lists of what we'd like to do for summer vacation. The "cunning" enemy reminds me of a bunch of swarming fire ants. I handle fire ants with a can of gasoline and a match. It might not kill the queen, but it's wonderful watching them cook for awhile.

InfidelProud .....I do not underestimate an enemy who spends 24 hours a day planning murder...In 1983 they a truck and killed 241 Trained Marines who were caught off guard and forced America to flee Lebanon....19 men with box cutters changed the world overnight....This enemy is cunning and a very big danger to the world.....I thought we here at Jihad watch knew that.

August22:

You raise some good points, but you lose your head along the way as well and end up going completely off the rails, so I repeat what I said before - calm down. Your suspicion of the Guardian is entirely understandable. I don't much like it myself for a variety of reasons, not all of them related to the question of Islam and Jihad. However, I've checked the matter of the Persian calendar and found that he's correct in this part of his argument.

You say:

"Secondly, if you watched the clip, you will see why it is not logical to treat Iran like we treated the Soviet Union, which is what you suggest. This is not like the Red Scare. The scare may be the same, but the motives of the bad guy are not".

The analogy, of course, is not perfect. There are major differences, but nothing that indicates that an attack against Iran at this point is justified.

As for the comparison to Hitler and 1939, you're partly right about this, but in 1939, there was no pre-emptive attack. War was declared only after Hitler invaded Poland.

You also say:

"Why not just say, NO, we refuse this ultimatum? Why say, We will have an answer for you in two months, on the date of the end of Mordad? Just what do you think he has in mind for the end of Mordad"?

You assume that they're going to refuse the West's proposals, which you characterize as an "ultimatum", but I point out that the West has offered a number of incentives, so I don't think "ultimatum" is the right word to use. I'd call it a proposal. Perhaps they won't refuse. Perhaps they'll indicate acceptance. You're trying to read the future. Do you have a crystal ball or something? The only sensible thing to do is wait and see what happens.

As for why the end of Mordad, well, as I speculated in my first posting, it could just be that this is a nice round date in Iran, just as "August 31" might be for us. When such a date is chosen it's usually more or less random, which means they could make their response sooner.

As for why they didn't give their response two months ago, I thought I'd indicated a reasonsble response to that point in my first post, but I'll restate it, hopefully in clearer terms: no leader, particulary a dictator like "Madhat" likes to loose face; holding out is a way of showing defiance as a form of "moral victory", as is common in the Middle East. To accept quickly would indicate poor resolve or desparation, something "Madhat" obviously does not want to do.

You also state:

"Panic is one thing. Resolute action is not panic".

I agree. But the Coalition took "resolute action" in Iraq with a preemptive strike and it has been spectacularly unsuccessful, even though they "took out" Iraq's leadership shortly after the war was launched. Still, countless coalition soldiers are dying and the position of Jihadists has been strengthened by the action, not weakened. It will take a very long time indeed for them to achieve anything positive there, and longer by far if they open up yet another front (in Iran).

Western powers can put their military on alert should a response to Iranian aggression be necesary on August 22, but the suggestion that we attack preemptively, which is what I think you're making, is unhelpful, because Western military force would have a very long hard struggle to win, if victory can be gained at all. Further, in the more important sense (as it relates to what you want to see done about - or to - Iran), your analogy to the Allies' response to Hitler on the eve of WWII is irrelevant. War with Iran would likely cost uncountable lives on both sides, especially if it became a nuclear war and, as I've said, would quite possibly be unwinnable, just like Iraq seems to be. And if there was no threat to take out, western forces will have killed a lot of people for nothing - not something I'd want on my conscience. The lives of Iranian children are no less valuable than the lives of our own, or the children of Israelis. Pre-emptive war is immoral. Period!

We can only do, sensibly, what we did in 1939 - respond when -or if- attacked, and not before.
You probably should stock some supplies in case there is any major crisis on the 22nd. I plan to myself. As I said in my first post, one can never be sure when it comes to a regime like Iran's. In any event, in the part of the world I live in (Canada) all governments (federal, provincial and municipal) advise citizens to have an emergency plan to deal with crises, since these can occur anytime whether from natural disaster, pandemic, terrorist attack, foreign invasion or God knows what. So its good to be prepared. That can be your resolute action, August22. If there is an attack, we have to survive it first, and then we can fight. Sorry, August22, but that, and that alone, is the way honorable warfare has been waged for centuries, and this is even more true in an age of WMD's.

One more thought about the analogy to Hitler. Not everything "our side" does is right just because its us. World War II could have ended peacefully and the Communist occupation of Eastern Europe been avoided if the allies hadn't leaked word to Hitler about the plot against him by some of his senior officers, but they did it in order to perpetuate the conditions that could justify extentind the war and imposing on Germany an unconditional defeat. How many needless deaths and how much needless suffering resulted from that, I wonder? The carpet bombing of Dresden inflicted massive civilian deaths on a city that had virtually no strategic significance whatsoever. Our side can commit crimes as well, and has done so plenty. Make sure you're not aligning yourself with something similar or the threat of "damnation" you wave at me might strike you instead.

Will I be damned by history for not rushing to war that may be wholely unnecesary? I doubt it. Either way, I'll take my chances.

I forgot to mention one thing, August22. When you say "You are in league with them", it reminds me of "You're with us, or you're against us" (or was it "you're with the terrorists" - well, no matter, not worth remembering anyway). Famous last words of George Dubya Bush, one of the most spectacularly unsuccessful presidents of all time.

How about this?

Maybe the "President" of Iran was aware of a plot that was scheduled to take place a week before his prediction and he was going to take credit for it.

http://thearena-us.blogspot.com/2006/08/was-iran-behind-ten-terror-planes.html

If you've ever listened to Glenn, he is an almost tongue-in-cheek funny man. I can remember one of his morning shows when the discussion got into whether or not it was okay to torture jailed terrorists. His thoughts were that he cared one way or another about at the same level over whether he wanted butter or gravy on his mashed potatoes. What's wrong with nut-job? Is it politically incorrect? Insurgent just says it all, doesn't it? How about Islamo-fascist- whacked-out-psycho-babykilling pedophile? Yeah, I'll take gravy.

Robert listening again to your interview, l do congratulate you making statements backed with facts and logic. It seems that your interviewer greatly admires this Bernard Lewis, and by mentioning his name and that his statement about Aug.22 coincides with your theory on Irainain pres was quite well done, reminds me of a chess game. check mate to that. Congratulations again to a job well done.

The analogy, of course, is not perfect. There are major differences, but nothing that indicates that an attack against Iran at this point is justified.

You are 100% naive. Of course there is. All the statements and behavior of the regime point to an imminent attack.

As for the comparison to Hitler and 1939, you're partly right about this, but in 1939, there was no pre-emptive attack. War was declared only after Hitler invaded Poland.

Exactly my point. That is why we can't afford to make the same mistake again. We have to act first, not react once it is too late to stop the madman.

You assume that they're going to refuse the West's proposals, which you characterize as an "ultimatum", but I point out that the West has offered a number of incentives, so I don't think "ultimatum" is the right word to use.

Of course it is the right word to use. Iran has been give several ultimatums and each time it has turned into a bluff. And each time Iran has told the UN and the US to go screw themselves. So how come this last time, they did not say that? This time they had a different answer - no answer at all - until August 22.

You're trying to read the future.

You are trying not to see the future.

It's called simple deduction. Sitting back and waiting to see what happens is exactly the kind of non-action that always led to bad people getting the upper hand.

holding out is a way of showing defiance as a form of "moral victory",

If he wants to hold out, all he has to do is do what he has always done in the past, namely to say, Go to hell. This time his response was different. Why?

It's amazing that you can look at an elephant in the face and not see an elephant.

But the Coalition took "resolute action" in Iraq with a preemptive strike and it has been spectacularly unsuccessful, even though they "took out" Iraq's leadership shortly after the war was launched.

There is no analogy to Iraq. Saddam wasn't on the verge of nuking Israel or the west. He had nothing along those lines. Saddam was not a lunatic. He was a survivor, a secular arab who was not suicidal. This iranian president is very much so. His statements are prologue to what is coming. And the war in Iraq has been a joke. It has not been prosecuted with any vigor at all. American could have come down hard on the population, on the mosques, on the clerics, on the imams, but chose to play a game of winning hearts and minds. That is why the war has turned into a mess.

because Western military force would have a very long hard struggle to win, if victory can be gained at all.

Nonsense. It would take nothing more than a concentrated air assult to take out the capital. And a concentrated nuclear strike to take out the installations.

War with Iran would likely cost uncountable lives on both sides, especially if it became a nuclear war and, as I've said, would quite possibly be unwinnable, just like Iraq seems to be.

More nonsense. Iran can not possible defeat the US in a nuclear war. Iran is a sitting duck. But it is a duck with a shotgun. I say shoot the duck before the duck shoots us. You want to talk about American lives being lost, then just sit back and let Iran dictate what happens next. They may even have a bomb/s smuggled into a major US city already just waiting for the word to go. An air/nuclear attack on Iran will cost no American lives. I am not advocating any boots on the ground.

And if there was no threat to take out, western forces will have killed a lot of people for nothing - not something I'd want on my conscience. The lives of Iranian children are no less valuable than the lives of our own, or the children of Israelis. Pre-emptive war is immoral. Period!

Oh, so that it what is up your ass. You're an anti-war nut. Well let me tell you that pre-emptive war is not unjustified. Sitting around waiting for the monsters of the world to strike first is what is morally unconscionable. Your "conscience" is going to get a lot of Americans, and Israelis killed. But you won't mind that. You are more concerned about Iranian children, children that will grow up to hate and kill infidels anyway. You worry about their deaths, but not of the deaths of all those that this Hitler has planned. All so that you can sleep better at night. History does repeat itself because, as I said, human nature of the appeasers and the aggressors, never changes.

We can only do, sensibly, what we did in 1939 - respond when -or if- attacked, and not before.

Well there is it. You actually believe that the response to Hitler up until he attacked Poland and then England was the morally correct path. Well right there you lose all credibility on this forum and in the eyes of history. Why am I even arguing with you.

been avoided if the allies hadn't leaked word to Hitler about the plot against him by some of his senior officers, but they did it in order to perpetuate the conditions that could justify extentind the war and imposing on Germany an unconditional defeat.

So now you are a conspiracy nut. There was no leak of the plan to assassinate Hitler. Hitler was in that map room when the bomb went off. Are you suggesting that an unconditional surrender of the Nazis was not necessary and was indeed, cruel?

The carpet bombing of Dresden inflicted massive civilian deaths on a city that had virtually no strategic significance whatsoever. Our side can commit crimes as well, and has done so plenty. Make sure you're not aligning yourself with something similar or the threat of "damnation" you wave at me might strike you instead.

Bombing the Germany cities was completely within the rules of warfare. So don't give me this leftist, America-was-immoral, too Michael Moore sophistry. This is not the Daily Kos. We think here at JW. We also appreciate history.

Will I be damned by history for not rushing to war that may be wholely unnecesary? I doubt it. Either way, I'll take my chances.

I advocate rushing to prevent a war. That is what you leftists can't understand. You prevent wars by stopping them before they start - by sheer force. You will take your chances? No, you are safe in Canada. You are not taking any chances. What about the people in Israel that might end up in a fireball because you want to take your chances and keep your high-minded moral superiority?

Your approach is to let the madman act first, and to do anything pre-emptive against them is immoral. What a postion to take in this day and age. Unbelievable.

I wonder if there is a (supposed) Mahdi waiting in the Iranian presidential palace for the appropriate occasion (sipping tea, or whatever).

Robert-

Terrific presentation of the facts. You really are a Joe Friday type. I detect something in the Jack Webb personality that is very similar to you. That's good for people who look at the facts and the real world.

God bless you.

August22:

You fault me for the following statement:

"[Much suffering could have] been avoided if the allies hadn't leaked word to Hitler about the plot against him by some of his senior officers, but they did it in order to perpetuate the conditions that could justify extentind the war and imposing on Germany an unconditional defeat."

Actually, the plot I had in mind was the one that Rommel is thought to have been involved in, and certainly at least knew about, which I've always understood to have been aimed at removing the Nazi party from power as well. Part of the reference I was making is based on reports I heard some years ago about the opening up of cabinet documents of one of the Allied governments that provided new information to historians on what the Allies knew or didn't know about this. I've checked several sources without finding anything specific to back up my statement, so its possible that I'm mistaken about what the story actually was, what was said about the plot in question, and/or about its implications of the unsealed documents regarding the present general consensus of historians of WWII.

I am not prepared to waste any more time on this ancient history, remote as it is from what we're actually supposed to be discussing on this page, and unlike the ugly American that you seem to be I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong, or may be wrong, so I'll concede that point to you and withdraw that part of my argument, but my comment on the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden stands - and the same is true of all other saturation bombing, including German bombing of Allied cities.

In another place you say:

"Well there is it. You actually believe that the response to Hitler up until he attacked Poland and then England was the morally correct path".

The allies could have attacked Hitler with perfect justification at least as early as his attack on Czekoslovakia and occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938, possibly earlier. The difference here is that there was something definite to respond to in that case, an actual aggression. You're talking war over rumours, speculation and Ahmadinejhad's bluster.

You speculate as follows:

"They may even have a bomb/s smuggled into a major US city already just waiting for the word to go"

If this is true and that's their plan, the campaign you're proposing won't stop it, particulary if the current regime stays in power, or something as bad or worse comes as a result.

By the way you suggest that we here in Canada are "safe". Actually we're just as much threatened as you, not the least because our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan at a rate proportionally greater than the American military in Iraq, carrying on the fight the U.S. decided not to finish (despite all the bluster about capturing Osama bin Laden) because it thought it more important, again on the basis of mostly rumours and speculation, to invade and screw up the one country that was secular and that aggressively contained and persecuted Islamic fundamentalism in its borders. And don't think you need to bore me with what a monster and a Hitler Saddam was. There were plenty of people complaining about this in the days when the U.S. was arming him and propping up his power. Elsewhere you write:

"Oh, so that it what is up your ass. You're an anti-war nut".

No, I said pre-emptive war is wrong, not all war.
Can't you read? For that matter, you point out "we think here at JW". True, but obviously some more than others.

unlike the ugly American that you seem to be

There you go with more cliches from the Left. "ugly American" I happen to be a Canadian. And actually quite handsome if I may say so. You are very much safe in Canada. You are not in Israel right now awaiting Madhat's bomb. Nor are you in NYC or anywhere else that he might decide to strike.

The allies could have attacked Hitler with perfect justification at least as early as his attack on Czekoslovakia and occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938, possibly earlier

Yes, far earlier, like when he came to power. But Hitler never made any remarks about wanting to wipe a country off the map at that point, nor was there any fear he would use a superweapon at any moment. Nor was Hitler seen as suicidal. Nor did he tell his people to prepare for martyrdom. And yet, even with all that, it STILL would have been prudent to think him a terrible danger and take action to remove his government from power with whatever means necessary. But most people said it was just, rumors, speculation, and bluster.

You're talking war over rumours, speculation and Ahmadinejhad's bluster.

Exactly.

If this is true and that's their plan, the campaign you're proposing won't stop it, particulary if the current regime stays in power, or something as bad or worse comes as a result.

If you take the head off the snake, that is a good start. And I doubt anything worse could follow this Ayatollah and his Napoleon complex madman sidekick. And even if it couldn't be stopped, you can't actually be serious about just waiting to see if they do it, just to appease our consciences? No, wait, that is exactly what you are proposing.

No, I said pre-emptive war is wrong, not all war.

And I have never met a leftist who was not opposed to "pre-emptive" war. Then, after we get attacked, they advise restraint and caution. Then when we do attack finally, they find fault with the "indiscriminate bombing", "killing of civilians", and "mistreatment of prisoners". It's the same circus every time.

OT slightly but I noticed the link for terrorfreeoil on the site and wondered if anyone had any info on gas stations in the U.K. that dont use middle east oil?
thanks

Well, August22,

I know I won't convince you, but for the sake of those out there who are NOT hysterical, here's my response, and this will be my last entry on this topic.

It's definitely unfortunate that I have to use a crude caricature like "ugly American", since I'm sure that by this point most Americans have ceased to talk the kind of stupidity that you are still carrying one with.

Which brings me to another point. I've always agreed that there's at least some chance that Iran is planning the kind of attack Robert and others say is possible and that you're convinced is inevitable. If you're having trouble convincing me that we should go on the attack with full scale bombing and nuclear weapons over Ahmadinejhad's crazy religious ranting consider that it may be because for fifty years American military power has been used more and more aggressively throughout the world against threats that may or may not have actually even existed in many cases, while we've been assured each time that this would make the world safer, and instead things have gone steadily from bad to worse with each passing year and decade. After surviving the cold war, what does the world have now? Real war, and more and more of it. Yet despite the obvious catastrophe that is Iraq, where the threat of militant Islam was once contained, and is now exploding (quite literally!) everywhere, a handful of people out there, including you, continue to pound away for more of the same - WAY more! So now there appears to be a real threat, but everyone is reluctant to do anything about it. Or should I put it this way: people who think like you have lied so many times that now no one believes them even when they're telling the truth. Perhaps you've only yourself to blame, for crying wolf once too often.

You say it could have all happened better if America had fought more aggressively. Do you really believe that even a weapon as powerful as the huge American military machine is powerful enough to pacify a nation as volatile and angry as Iran, which in any case would eventually drag the entire Islamic world - all 1.5 billion of them (!) into the fight.

But why am I even troubling myself to ask this? Of course you do! After all, you say:

"American could have come down hard on the population, on the mosques, on the clerics, on the imams, but chose to play a game of winning hearts and minds".

No doubt you'd say that it would've been better if they had simply put the boots to the place, and beaten the bejesus out of everyone and everything for moving, breathing or batting an eyelash, or even reduced the whole place ("pre-emptively") to a smouldering heap of radioactive rubble! Aside from the fact that that would've made it harder to find those pesky WMD's (which we all still know those damned Iraqis have got there somewhere!)I think we have to ask ourselves what sane nation or people could possibly act out that level of brutality and still live with itself or even survive as a people? Oh - wait a minute ... I guess I'm mistaken again. Yes, that's right, it seems there's a religion that's pretty good at it.

WELL DONE AUGUST22! You've turned yourself into the spittin image of Islam!

You trouble yourself to point out to me that you're Canadian. That's completely irrelevant. I only mentioned my nationality by way of information for comparative purposes in regard to what is, in this part of the world, a little known but officially mandated, disaster preparation policy. Whether you're Canadian, American, French, Italian, Sri Lankan, Melanasian, Guyanese, Polynesian, or whatever, is of no significance whatever. The question isn't what country you're from but what planet!

Yes, you're right about at least one thing. Something must be done about the crazy threat of Islam. There are ways to begin waging the war that must be fought against Islam, without reducing the whole world to radioactive decay. (Please don't bother to remind me that your nuclear strike against Iran would be a limited and targetted one since we all know that radiation doesn't respect international borders, and in any event the nukes you speculate may be hidden in major American cities - Europe, Canada and other places probably have them too if they're out there - will certainly start going off en masse if Iran is attacked by the United States). Here are some of the things western governments need to do:

1. Change the very bad laws that allow aggressive Muslims into western countries, and start an aggressive program of deportation of these immigrants whenever there's any serious reason to suspect them of plotting something, of aggressive attitudes, or even of just being too difficult as individuals to integrate into our societies and imbue with our values.

2. Pass restrictions in law against anyone with clear extremist tendencies from holding any public office or position of trust in any profession.

3. Set up sections within the interior or security ministries (such as the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. and the Ministry of Public Security in Canada) that are empowered to supervise and surveil every single Islamic institution and community setting, and declare illegal any written propagation or, public proclamation, instruction or teaching of anything that directly counsels or even excuses or tolerates Islamic violence, including even obscure points of Islamic theology if need be, and likewise for any action, ritual or behaviour that does the same, even if it means in practice that the whole Islamic faith and practice of same is, in effect, banned in the Western World. (Its very doubtful in fact that it would ever have to go so far as to make the practice of any form of Islam impossible, but in any event this kind of minding of the Islamic religion by government is common in the Middle East, so the religous liberty crowd can rest assured that its perfectly sound, not discriminatory at all, just necesary).

4. Follow Ovinesong's suggestion by ceasing to rely on oil imported from the Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country that is known to sponsor terrorism or has a poor human rights rights record, including any unfair treatment of ethnic, racial or religious minorities. (This is something individuals, as Ovinesong suggests can do on their own as well).

5. Build good relations and favorable trading arrangements with any Islamic country that is peaceful, moderate, tolerant, inclusive and sensible (there may not be a great many at this point, but Mali is said to be one, and there are apparently areas of India where the Moslems have their heads on straight, and I can offer leads to anyone interested about where to find information about these).

6. Make sure that the measure I recommend in #4 above is tied to all human rights issues, including complete academic freedome in schools and universities for academics and students to discuss, promote and explore without fear of attack, threat or prosecution, any and all new interpretations of Islam, including some of the more recent and startling theories about the surprizing historical origins of the Koran (about which, again, I can provide leads for anyone wanting info).

7. Prepare the military for the was that may (its important to stress MAY here) come in any event,by careful study and development of the tactics of dessert warfare, and acquisition of appropriate equipment, but most importantly the building of industrial capacity to quickly turn over production infrastructure to the war effort when or if hostilities break out. But its important to note here that this war has to be fought only when or if a direct military attack or raid really comes from an actual Islamic state, by way of its regular forces, militias, or irregular forces known to be in its employ. Countering and punishing terrorist attacks per se, are the work, in the main, of law enforcement agencies and also of financial authorities to choke off the supply of their funds and resources, and THIS HAS SCARCELY BEEN DONE AT ALL - consider Saudi Arabia and its role in the financing and indoctrination of the Taliban).

Don't worry August22, even if you abandon your call for immediate nuclear war with Iran, and embrace the more "moderate", "wishy-washy" measures i've suggested above, you can probably do so without fear of having people think you a "leftist".

Rabid dogs do not deserve rewards for behaving....they deserve to be put to sleep.

Iran, North Korea, Hamas, Al Queda, Hezzbullah, not necessarily in that order....I'll quote Nike.

JUST DO IT!

By the way Robert...great job on the interview. My wife thinks I'm obsessed with these whackos so I'll just wait for the next incident to start my rants again...The next wave of Pakistani and Egyptian men to buy out K Marts supply of cell phones. They just want to make some side money and have knowledge of the airlines availability on flight ledgers. The new airline no carry-on rules severely have restricted my ability to bring on my small vodka bottles for free cocktails....bastards!

consider that it may be because for fifty years American military power has been used more and more aggressively throughout the world against threats that may or may not have actually even existed in many cases, while we've been assured each time that this would make the world safer, and instead things have gone steadily from bad to worse with each passing year and decade.

Again, the same old tired leftist line. America has used its military for bad. Not. America has used its military sparingly for 50 years when it could have done a hell of a lot more if it wanted to. But to a leftist like yourself, anytime America leaves port, you find a reason to condemn America's "imperalism".

we've been assured each time that this would make the world safer, and instead things have gone steadily from bad to worse with each passing year and decade.

How can you say that the world has become less safe with each passing decade? The world came near armegeddon in 1962. It hasn't been that close since. Except for now with Iran. You better check your history books again. And American won the cold war. But only with the likes of people like you poo-pooing military force at every turn.

After surviving the cold war, what does the world have now? Real war, and more and more of it.

American didn't survive the Cold War. It won it, which is something the left hates to admit. And you are one of them. And incidently, the First World is free of war. It is only the crap holes in the Third World that continue to fight each other. Trouble is, there is another crap hole called Iran, that is now threatening America and Israel, so now is the time to step in and squash that crap hole.

a handful of people out there, including you, continue to pound away for more of the same - WAY more

You just don't get it. Bush's war in Iraq is not war. It is winning hearts and minds that caused the mess. All we needed to do was to get rid of Saddam, level the place and get out. That is how you treat the islamic world. But instead we got soldiers handing out candy and getting blown up for their trouble. That is the only reason why the so called war in Iraq is still going on - because America isn't actually doing much fighting, they are building schools and utility works - like idiots - and that is the only reason why leftists like you can criticize the war and get away with it. You can criticise nation buildding, but you can not find fault with war itself. What you are criticising in Iraq is the naivete of nation buildings, something no true conservative cares for. Only a neophyte like Bush would endeavor to do that with military resources. That is not what military resources are for.

Do you really believe that even a weapon as powerful as the huge American military machine is powerful enough to pacify a nation as volatile and angry as Iran,

LOL. America, when it had much less resources at is disposal, defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan simultaneously - two of the most powerful military machines in history. Do you really think that if it came to war, America couldn't handle a bunch of arabs screaming lalalalalalala in sandals and robes? Israel has gone toe to toe with them and come out on top. And Israel is 1/1000 the power of the US. You leftists are a real trip. First you demonize America for being too powerful, so powerful that it needs to reign itself in lest it trample the whole world, but then you say that it will be defeated by a bunch of third world arabs - so it shouldn't go there.

I think we have to ask ourselves what sane nation or people could possibly act out that level of brutality and still live with itself or even survive as a people?

Again, your leftism clouds your brain. You forget history, or you resent history. Which is it? The Allies bombed the crap out of both Germany and Japan killing millions. And it won those wars. And America survived quite nicely afterwards. And both Germany and Japan became model socities. Without that thrashing, they would have contined to be fascist military dictatorships - the very thing that leftists like you are supposed to rally against, right?

You trouble yourself to point out to me that you're Canadian

No, you troubled yourself by calling me an ugly American, so it was only appropriate that I remind you that you were wrong about my nationality. Your anti-war leftist brain wants to call anybody that doesn't think like an anti-war, pacifist, moral relativist, an "Ugly American".

Okay, August22, I'll let you have the last word on this, since I said that that last post of mine would be the final one on the topic. In the big picture, there's probably more that we agree than disagree on.

Just a quick note to correct something I said previously. In an earlier posting I referred to Iraq as “the one country that was secular and that aggressively contained and persecuted Islamic fundamentalism in its borders”. This of course is not correct. There are several others in the region that are secular, although from every indication I know, Iraq had been the one that had had the most success containing it. I provide this correction now because as I noted earlier, and we both agree, the correct facts are important. This one got by me temporarily because of the extreme heat of our exchange.

If you'd care to comment on any of the proposals I make for measures that we can take NOW in the West, I'd welcome hearing about that.

Also, for the sake of clarity in that list, I said “Make sure that the measure I recommend in #4 above is tied to all human rights issues”. That should have been #5.

I said above: "If you'd care to comment on any of the proposals I make for measures that we can take NOW in the West."

That should have read "other measures". I think August22 and I probably both need more sleep than we've been getting.