All you have put forward is an obvious trumped-up strawman. To flip your question on it's head, why do Liberals think that any criticism of our enemies, and any support of our allies, qualifies as 'authoritarian' and 'oppressive'?

Liberals denigrate, marginalize and insult our allies, while exalting, promoting and encouraging our enemies.

What frustrates me so much is the American mindset to judge all these enemies as insane psychopaths…they're not. If you actually read their strategy they are completely sane — cold hearted murderers that have terrible goals perhaps, but sane nonetheless. This is precisely why Al Qaeda repudiated Zarqawi for so long, because he was a mindless killer. They were (rightly) afraid that his indiscriminate attacks would create a backlash against their organization and Zarqawi forced their hand by bringing in so many foreigners to fight they felt they had to actually embrace them. This was a fatal mistake for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Heck, bin Laden has never claimed that he could ever defeat us militarily, his goal was always to bring us into bankruptcy so we'd be forced to withdraw.

And that's just a terrorist group, not rulers that has figured out how to control a fiercely independent, intelligent and cosmopolitan country for 30 years now.

Even if Iran wanted to destroy Israel they would be incapable of it…even with several fission bombs. So really there is no way that they would or can carry out. There is no way they could give a bomb to a terrorist group and have it explode without us knowing the source. Neither science nor history support any of the fear mongering going on.

See: Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 Hijackers.

It would be true of the far Left and its reaction toward any US success in the Middle East and even toward standing up to a regional threat like Iran. I laughed with much derision at the commercial yesterday on “progressive” [sic] radio here in town that shrieked about McCain's “more wars” remark (and also said this was why people should get and read The Nation).

And those, such as in the Iranian government, who have been training thousands of suicide bombers speak clearly with their actions in addition to their words insofar as suicidal (and homicidal) ideation is concerned. You lose again.

This was reported here in the USA, not only in Europe, and it differs from what you would expect — as was reported yesterday, a representative news article today has explained that it is related to problems we are facing currently in Afghanistan. (More than one month in a row, we have had more deaths there than in Iraq).

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&...

Earlier, yes, there was a Gulf exercise. Too bad if Iran doesn't like it; it's the threat in the region.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsURmFzdPQH...

Meanwhile, to the Iranian leadership, it's worth fighting Israel and losing nearly 100% of Iran's population in a WMD exchange if in the end Israel ceases to exist. The arithmetic makes sense to the illogical, fanatical Iranian leadership.

That's just blatant and ignorant fearmongering. Iran has done nothing in the nearly 4 decades since their inception that would give the impression they're suicidal.

And until you have some evidence to the contrary, you're just trolling.

If Israel loses one — count 'em (1) — war, given its size, it is all over for Israel. The country will cease to exist.”

Nuclear blast radii are cube-root scaled and more, smaller nukes cover a total area better than a single, bigger nuke — but in the case of Israel's side and its population distribution, even a small nuke is an existential threat to it. Look at its size and the blast radii of a nuke. And multiple gas-filled missiles would achieve the same result.

Meanwhile, to the Iranian leadership, it's worth fighting Israel and losing nearly 100% of Iran's population in a WMD exchange if in the end Israel ceases to exist. The arithmetic makes sense to the illogical, fanatical Iranian leadership.

Still there are some mental or moral failures who would consider Israel to be as bad as the Iranians, if not worse.

Regards, C

The president, contrary to all the bloviating and posturing, really only directly affects a limited number of arenas. For the rest of it, a president can cajole, or suggest, or browbeat, or even bully, but foreign policy is much different.

The president sets the tone (via SoS), and basically sets up the framework (the list of options) for what can and cannot happen. Yes, congress has to be consulted for money (for long-term efforts) and things like treaties, but short-term reactions by the US come directly out of the executive branch.

This matters.

Where is the criticism of Israel for ratcheting up the tension levels in the region?

It's simple, we don't apply the same standards to ourselves or our allies as we do to our enemies.

And thanks for linking to the McCain-Iran-death joke.

If Ahmadinejad had said something similar I have no doubt that we would be discussing how crazy Iran is and how we should bomb them immediately because they can't be reasoned with.

What's next, blaming Bush for Iran's provocative behavior?

Maybe because the leader of Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with complete annihilation…Jews swept into the sea…etc?

Maybe because Israel occupies a tiny sliver of coastal land.

It is sort of like the IRA's memorable warning to the British govt. in the wake of their failed assassination attempt on Thatcher at Brighton: “We only have to get lucky once.”

Iran can lose a million men in the Iran-Iraq War…and it survives as a nation.

If Israel loses one — count 'em (1) — war, given its size, it is all over for Israel. The country will cease to exist.