It would be nice if Russians reacted to their shameful 20th century in the manner Germans react to wax figurines of Hitler. In contrast to the healthy revulsion in Germany toward the Nazi regime, Russian leaders exhibit an unhealthy amnesia to the colossal crimes committed by their predecessors. Forty summers ago, Russian tanks rolled into Prague to crush a spirit of freedom that had spread in Czechoslovakia during 1968's Prague Spring. Whereas idiotic American students rallied in support of Communist tyrants in 1968, their Czech counterparts bravely rallied against them. Several dozen Czechs and Slovaks got killed in the process. Today, to the prospect of a U.S. missle shield guarding the Czech Republic from future aggression, the Russian foreign ministry reacts: "We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods." The Cold War is over, and it may not be in America's interests to antagonize the weakened Russian bear, but can you blame Czech leaders for desiring protection against the people who imposed tyranny upon them as recently as two decades ago?

well iran just test fired some rockets to show thier power. they might not have nuke tips but they will soon. does that bother any one here? dan ,asdf you guys like the hide behind our borders idea, so whats yer plan for iran? Im thinking you like the bragi obammie plan. the one were we dont get involved with other nations rights,and to let the UN work it out.

So, what’s your solution? Should we move more men and equipment that we don’t have into Iran to force our point? While we’re at it, why not go into Syria. Or maybe Lebanon too. And why stop there?

It’s always interesting to me to see Americans at home safe, sound and protected by the liberties offered by this country, who protest against the interests of their own country and rally for the interests of other countries. It’s their right of course. But, when they stage demonstrations in support of regimes that most certainly would mow them down if they were citizens of said regimes, it so smacks of stupidity.

TagM: I can't help but laugh at being lectured on foreign policy by a guy who supported the president's disastrous scheme of democratizing Iraq. What do you propose? An "Iraq the Sequel" in Iran? Is your source on Iranian nukes the same one that informed your opinion that Saddam had a vast arsenal of WMD? You mention Obama and the UN. Please remember: Bush was crawling to the UN prior to the Iraq invasion, attempting to get the body's approval of the war when he should have been going to the U.S. congress to get a war declaration. In reality, the soft Wilsonianism that you decry--the type that defers to multilateralism and international bodies--has more in common with Bush's hard Wilsonianism than the traditionalist conservative foreign policy position generally aired here at FlynnFiles.

Did bush listen to the un. you would have, but i laff at you ducking the question. what is your solution? you say iraq is a wreck i differ. but since you knew that before hand again whats ur solution to iran? asdf, you rope a doped the question too. easy to second quess, but didnt i just read that yellow cake was shipped form iraq? hmm no msm report on that. well bush prob. put it there.

TagM: I would have never have gone to the UN. I don't recognize its authority over the United States. You engage in liberalspeak by referring to a "solution" in Iran; geopolitics isn't math. There aren't definitive "solutions." Iran getting nukes is certainly a problem. Ironically, with the foolish war that you support in Iraq, military options in dealing with Iran are more limited. Indeed, the boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon that comes from the false WMD claims regarding Iraq will, unfortunately, cloud the discussion with Iran's pursuit of nukes. When you find the Iraqi WMD, perhaps at Roswell or behind the grassy knoll, do let the rest of us know. The rockets Iran fired are capable of hitting some nations in their region (including Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of American soldiers are). They are not capable of hitting the United States. If Israel and/or other nations within Iran's missle range sought to take out targets in Iran, I don't think the United States should stop them. I don't think starting yet another war, atop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a "solution" to Iranian pursuit of nukes. If there were a high probability that a strike would set them back, that could be an option on the table. But a failed strike might cause them to accelerate matters. If we haven't already, why not share with Israel and other friendly states within Iran's range the type of missle-defense technology that we are providing the Czechs? My overarching view on this is that conservatives should be for national defense, not international defense.

Hi Dan, actually the yellowcake is not a grassy knoll or Roswell issue. We here in Canada just bought it and had it transported here to be used in a civilian capacity. I was kind of surprised that our national media commented on the fact that it was here, but left out how it came to be in Iraq to begin with. Has anyone looked into that?