To attack or not to attack

Here are a few good articles about Iran. “Good” in the sense that they present the arguments for both sides of the attack vs. do not attack issue.

The do not attack argument fails on at least 3 points:

1. Iran is not Iraq. Therefore, you can”t point to the failure in Iraq as evidence for why there should be no attack against Iran. First, there was never any credible evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the West. Iran, on the other hand, is bragging of its efforts to develop a “peaceful” nuclear capability. The trouble is, Iran refuses to limit its uranium enrichment to peaceful levels. So, Iran definitely constitutes a threat whereas Iraq did not. Second, the attack against Iran would be an air war and not an occupation. It would be designed to set back Iran”s nuclear program and could be repeated whenever the program progressed to the point where the threat reappeared. No dead US soldiers, no allied occupation, no occupation. Iran is not Iraq.

2. There is good reason to fear that Iran”s leadership would not be deterred by the concept of MAD – mutually assured destruction – which deterred the Soviet leadership from using nukes all through the cold war years. These religious fanatics might actually like the prospect of (a) bringing on Judgment Day via nuclear Armageddon, or (b) just reshuffling the deck through a nuclear exchange with the West in the hope that this time it gets dealt a better geopolitically strategic hand (especially when there”s always prospect (a) to fall back on).

3. Appeasement doesn’t prevent war, it just makes it worse when it happens. Weren’t we supposed to have learned this already from WW2? The best time to stop Hitler would have been when he reoccupied the Rhineland in violation of the peace treaty ending WW1. Yes it would have meant war but it would have been fought entirely in Germany, it would have been of short duration, and its outcome would have certain victory for the West. How many millions of lives would have been saved? How much misery prevented?

By this time next year Iran will be a smouldering ruin

It”s a simple choice. Iran is a nuclear power or Iran is a smoldering ash heap. I don”t see how you get to any other alternative. The US will bomb Iran before Bush ends his term because it is too risky for him to leave it to the next President who may be Hilary Clinton. Guiliani would do it but he has to get elected first. I’d rather take the consequences of bombing Iran then let them acquire the means of starting a new cold war.

How to eliminate income tax

Gov. Huckabee is running for the US Republican Presidential nomination. He won”t get it but he has a good idea. His idea is to eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes. He correctly points out that corporate income tax is really just a tax on the consumer because companies just treat tax as a cost of production and pass it along in the price charged to consumers. That”s not new but it”s not often spoken of – in fact it”s completely ignored by Canadian politicians who are deathly afraid of suggesting we reduce let alone eliminate corporate taxes.

But Huckabee also would eliminate personal income taxes as well. He points out that all the offshore capital now safely out of the reach of the tax authorities would come back into the economy. Even better, the deterrent income tax poses to increased productivity would be gone and the economy freed to run at full production.

So how does the government pay for itself? With a tax on consumption. His proposal is a 23% sales tax. It sounds bad but its better than an income tax. With no income tax the black market economy would service and end up paying the sales tax. A monthly “prebate” would compensate (in advance) poor individuals for the tax they would end up paying for living essentials. This would make it progressive as the poor would be exempt and those who can afford to spend a lot would pay a lot.

It also has the advantage of being open and immediate – in your face – so there would be continuous pressure on government to keep it at an absolute minimum.

An anti-Islamist Muslim Hits the Nail on the Head

In this op-ed piece the writer calls for an end of state-sponsored pro-jihadi brainwashing in the name of multiculturalism. Nothing too new there, expect that he identifies the sponsor states as Britain and Canada.

Politicians who spout platitudes while funding fascists are as evil as the terrorists they enable. Boys are brainwashed by fables of a martyr”s glory told by those whose groups, institutions and even communities exist only because of misdirected tax-dollars. Who really funds terrorism? We do – because we, like the politicians we elect, lack the brains, the brawn, or both to say “no” to cultural causes so weak and unappealing as to be unable to sustain themselves financially.

The right of individuals to voluntarily associate in support of cultural, religious and any other purpose that poses no threat to the lives, liberty or property of others should be held inviolate. But so should the right of individuals not to associate or to support such purposes in any way – and that right is routinely violated by tax-funded multiculturalism.