Friends, despite the fact that the liberal media reaction was (inevitably) disapproving, I support President Trump's decision not to bomb Iran in response to its downing of a U.S. drone. Iran is a serious problem in the Middle East, and our number one adversary in the region. It is a supporter of terrorism, a seeker of ballistic missile technology, and a potential nuclear power. It is destabilizing Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and that's just the countries at the top of the list. For all these reasons, Iran must be held in check, and actions like the attack on our drone merit a response, but not, as Trump tweeted, a "disproportionate" response that only strengthens Iran's hand. The truth is that Iran is already writhing under tough U.S. and international sanctions. It may feel that the destabilization of the Persian Gulf region, and consequently a higher oil price, is the only way to save its bacon. Alternatively, the recent aggressive moves by Iran may be the work of a faction in the country's security forces that desires conflict with the West for ideological or strategic reasons. The key, I think, is to keep the world as united as possible against Iran, and killing Iranians via airstrikes won't help matters, unless there is a clear and serious provocation beforehand. Trump is wise to be judicious, therefore.
On a personal level, let me just say how proud I am of the President for considering the lives of Iranians before he took action. Trump was castigated as a warmonger before he took office, and still liberals claim that he will burn the world to ashes, if given half the chance, but in fact he's shown remarkable reluctance to involve us in foreign conflicts. Good! Trump is a man of peace, it would seem, and, when he says "America First!", he means it.
Here are a couple of stories about his decision to abort the attack on Iran.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lifts-curtain-iran-strikes
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/trump-doesn-t-need-to-attack-iran-he-s-winning-already
And, for good measure, here's a story about the removal of yet another historical monument by PC extremists on a college campus. Note that, this time, it's a monument celebrating California's Hispanic heritage. But no -- Native Americans can't abide Spanish missionaries, so the bell has to go. Shouldn't Hispanics be offended? More importantly, will any of our history be left when these latter-day Puritans have done their worst?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/university-of-california-santa-cruz-removes-historic-catholic-marker-deemed-racist-symbol
Dr. Waddy: I AGREE with you. This action is yet another manifestation of the fact that we have a superlatively competent President. His decision to refrain, at a moment when we could, undoubtably, have concentrated overwhelming power, was humane and, I trust, canny. It may yield much fruit.
ReplyDeleteAgree, Jack and Dr. Waddy. However, I do believe Iran needs an attitude adjustment as does some other middle east countries. Don't mistake me for a warmonger--as I am not. For once, I would like to see that proverbial redline pushed a little further. I think the former presidents have done a great disservice by not following through or dropping the ball, so to speak. Then again, those middle east countries have stood the test of time. It should be interesting how this plays out--if any. I do agree, the sanctions seem to be working and uniting the middle east might just be the key. I agree, Dr. Waddy, I am proud he took a step back (I can only imagine Bolton's reaction--who is a warmonger, grin). I am married to a former Marine--I hear both sides of the argument. This goes all the way back to Reagan and Beirut--my husband said,"You just can't reason with these people." A lot of military folks felt that the situation could of been handled differently--and if Reagan had stood ground--perhaps things would be different in the Middle East. Instead, the U.S. cut and ran. I'm no military historian by no means, so I would be interested to hear your take on it (both of you; Jack and Dr. Waddy)--I just hear it from the Marine (and his buddies) who served. A lot of angry folks who served and have opinions that are contrary to the present and past administration(s) and you can bet it is a hot topic in our household as we have a 22 year old who would be drafted if it ever came to war/ the draft was once again re-enstated. Let's hope it wouldn't go that far.
ReplyDeleteAbout the second article; I will always say this-just because you (in general) take down a statue or some other historic marker doesn't mean you can erase what happen. So many want to erase history to suit their needs. This does not surprise me. Saddens me to no end.
Linda: Lebanon at that time was purely anarchic, I think. But I would consider my opinion less credible than that of anyone who was there as to whether it was wise to leave. I was on a carrier off Vietnam but I've never been in direct combat and so I lack the wisdom of one who has. Reagan certainly stood up to the Soviets in building our forces to the point where the commies knew they could never best us.
ReplyDeleteLinda, I think you have a point about our hasty departure from Lebanon. It certainly didn't send a message of resolve. But Jack is right that we were essentially peacekeepers, and, as their was precious little peace to keep, perhaps our presence there was unwise to begin with. In that case, deploying the Marines to Beirut was itself a mistake. All in all, not Reagan's finest hour.
ReplyDeleteBroadly speaking, my position on the Middle East is: let it sort itself out. During the Cold War, I think we had no choice but to be engaged, because the region was the soft underbelly of the West (because of our reliance on oil). Now, though, we (the U.S.) don't need their oil. Europe, Japan, China, etc. do. Let them fight for it, therefore, if fighting is needed. I doubt it would be. Whomever may be the flavor of the month in Tehran or Baghdad, the bottom line is that they have oil to sell, and the world has money with which to buy it. I see no reason for us to try to micromanage Middle Eastern affairs. Nukes, arguably, could be a tipping point, though. Striking Iran tp prevent its acquisition of nukes could be justified.
I tend to lean towards your opinion on the Middle East. Also, the more I read about the Iran Deal made by the previous administration, the more I feel the U.S. gave away the store, so to speak. Agree-"Nukes, arguably, could be a tipping point, though. Striking Iran to prevent its acquisition of nukes could be justified."-Yep, agree.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy and Linda: Oh,I remember that: when we were in the thrall of 9th century style potentates for our gas - in 1974! It was disgraceful because we had to do obeisance to people enmired in the Middle Ages. Oh , Ahmed Zaki Yamani. the oil minister of Saudi Arabia, was as celebrated on local TV then as Captain Kangaroo, C'mon
ReplyDeleteThe fact today is that we are energy independent, plain and simple and that of course has been due to American effort and initiative, resistant despite massive leftist interference.
Dr. Waddy: I think we have had two essential concerns in the Middle East: oil and Israel. We've secured our oil supply now; I agree with you, it is up to others dependent on Persian Gulf oil to protect their own interests. One way is buy oil from us.
ReplyDeleteIsrael: Its preservation from forces motivated at their very core by the ancient and detestable evil of antisemitism is essential if we are to call ourselves civilized. I know the Israelis would maul anyone who nuked them but Iran has DECLARED its determination to annihilate them and is obviously set on acquiring the ultimate weapon. The prevention of this is the remaining vital interest for us in the Middle East, I think.
Dr Waddy and Linda:There was an intriguing commentary on Fox today about the President's action re Iran. It said that Iran deliberately shot down the drone expecting a military response the international reaction to which could redound to Iran's favor. The President made a finely thought out feint at that and then refrained in an unexpected but very creditable manner. But he is not done; he came back with more sanctions, which may be the backbreaker and Iran must now wonder what he may throw next.Certainly he is in a good position to recruit an international coalition to protect the tankers. If Iran wants to play, he's okay. He probably would have been a good boxer or judo practitioner. He continues to affirm the belief that one from outside the political world can be a very good President and that opens the door for many able people.
ReplyDeleteLinda, I agree re: the Iran Deal. Funny -- no one ever suggests Obama could have been an Iranian agent... But that would be absurd, right? Oy!
ReplyDeleteJack, you're quite right -- the Middle Eastern potentates had us right where they wanted us in the 70s. I'm a little surprised the Soviets didn't get more aggressive in the region, because they could have made no end of mischief there.
I concur that preventing Iran from accessing nukes is a vital interest. Easier said than done, though. In some ways, the tougher we are on Iran, the more incentive they have to acquire nukes. Frankly, Iran is a fairly rich, technically capable country. I think, in the final analysis, if they want nuclear weapons, they will have them. Maybe they already do.
I'm glad to hear Fox is praising President Trump's leadership on Iran. You can bet your bottom Euro than no one is doing so in the MSM or around the world. It may be true, though, that Iran hopes to provoke an overreaction on our part. My guess is, though, that their actions aren't that well-thought-out. They're probably flailing desperately, given their economic plight.
Dr. Waddy: I think Obama sees himself as an agent for all the world because he fully empathizes with what he believes to be world wide hatred of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIn the '70's,had the Soviets ever given us reason to fear for our oil supply they would have risked what we risk today should we push them too far on Ukraine, I think.
I agree, Dr. Waddy, Iran is flailing about --throwing whatever at the wind to just shake the tree (so to speak).
ReplyDeleteOy Jack!! You hit that correctly: "I think Obama sees himself as an agent for all the world because he fully empathizes with what he believes to be world wide hatred of the U.S. "---I might add that goes along with his administration (thinking John Kerry). I might add my two cents even further; that being that he holds a distaste for the U.S. and Nationalism (there, I said it, grin). He most def. holds a word view/globalism view and not the U.S. best interests at heart, jmo of course.
Yikes on your second Jack, again, I do believe you are correct. I remember 1974 and the gas shortage--I was 7 years old. Also, hmm...on Fox News, since the Murdoch boys have taken over and the hiring of Paul Ryan, it seems the conservative viewpoint is slipping, a bit. I really enjoy watching Fox Business (not Cavuto, though).
Linda: Kerry especially disgusts me. He tasked "W" for having used undue influence during the Vietnam era.Ehhh,I was in the Navy at the same time as Kerry was. Officer Candidate School,from which he graduated, was a path to a commission far less prestigious than Annapolis or NROTC. Yet,he went to an Admiral's staff and also garnered captaincy of a Swift Boat in Vietnam in his short tenure in the service. Swiftboat assignments were much sought after. He even "coincidentally" managed to have a JFKesque photo of himself taken at the helm. I'm very hesitant to criticize any combat vet for their service but he was taken to task by some of his war time fellows, for aspects of his service, when he ran for President. Then there was his disgraceful denunciation of our forces in Vietnam in his fashionably hairy testimony before Congress in, I think, '71. I watched some of it. He was positioning himself already for a post Vietnam American polity which he trusted would surely elevate him to his due - the mantle of Kennedy! I'm very glad the President has excoriated him specifically.He may well have thought to garner Obama's support for a laughable second stab at his White House destiny, in enabling the obsequious and presumptuous Iran nuclear deal.
ReplyDeleteI think we must always be cognizant of the unelected and mostly anonymous staffers and appointees elected officials empower. I know Obama brought declared Marxists into government. Just imagine some of the college trained Commies who work for Dems in Congress and the Judiciary. How many Nazis are there? None. Yet Marxists have been productive of infinitely more human misery than the pedestrian Nazis ever were.They should be equally ANATHEMA! That they are not is a window into the Dem/Leftist Radical mind and confirmation of how they would rule if we allow it.
Dr. Waddy and Linda: In discussing what I thought to be the two major concerns we had in the Middle East I neglected to consider the, yes, vital, issue of Islamic terrorism generated in the Middle East and directed at us. Mea culpa and yeeech! on me.
ReplyDeleteIt's all good Jack! I enjoy your replies. I am eagerly awaiting Dr. Waddy's next post, smiles.
DeleteP.S. Jack, as for the college trained (your comment in the previous comment about college commies), I am getting concerned about that. I was just reading about George Washington Univ. telling students to avoid 'whitesplaining'. College is a scary place at the moment.
Linda, I agree that Fox is a fair weather friend to conservatives. We had best keep our own counsel...
ReplyDeleteNo doubt it's true that Obama considers himself a "citizen of the world" first and foremost. There's some irony in an anti-nationalist taking the helm of a nation like the U.S., of course. Irony is lost on the Left, though, as we know all too well.
Had the Soviets occupied the Middle East in the 70s or 80s, I'm frankly not convinced we could have done much about it, except nuke everyone to cinders. It would have been a bold and potentially game-changing move on the Soviets' part. Luckily they were nervous nellies.
Hear hear re: Kerry. What a repugnant self-promoter. I'm shocked he hasn't announced his candidacy in 2020 yet. What's he waiting for?
Linda, I think "whitesplaining" might be a euphemism of sorts for free speech -- the last thing any leftist wants!
Linda and Dr. Waddy: I first heard the term "mansplaining" expressed in a not confrontational setting among friends and in your comments I've now heard of "whitesplaining". I should the think the terms, when expressed by radicals, mean "shut up" (like that Hawaiian Senator said). The real America's answer should be"naw, we expect we won't do that, sorry!"OH VERY free speech for the left but everyone else step off" is the Dem credo and I fully expect to see one such as AOC or "Beto" expectorate it soon.(By the way, "step off" is prison talk and I expect much of the radical left embraces it, as it does its felonious originators) Our President will trash it and we should follow his courageous lead and support him to the full.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear! Donald Trump may be many things, but one thing he is NOT is easily intimidated. He won't "shut up," and neither will I, in lending him whatever support I can.
ReplyDelete