Day of Reckoning?

The nuclear facility near Natanz, Iran
DIGITALGLOBE/GETTY IMAGES

Source:
U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

from newsmax.com:

Monday, April 14, 2008
By: Jim Meyers

Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.
“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.
“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.
Read the rest here:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=al&promo_code=4940-1

Note from Radarsite:

As the knee-jerk pacifist libs are already getting their old "Bush Lied! Thousands died!" placards out of the closet and dusting them off, I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is indeed a reliable "source". If the alternative to a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is permitting the crazy mullahs to have a bomb so that they can blackmail the entire ME and have the means to totally annihilate Israel, then I am an unabashed warmonger. I readily accept the premise that preemptive strikes are sometimes legitimate -- and morally-justifiable choices; they can actually save lives. An Allied preemptive attack on Hitler in 1938 would have stopped the advance of Nazism in its tracks and saved millions of lives. But, as we all know too well, the Allies couldn't muster up the will to do it. And by the time events overtook them and they no longer had a choice, the Nazi war machine had become all but invincible.

Tellingly, our present day pacifist/appeaser libs hate WWII analogies; and for damn good reason. The Chamberlainesque parallels hit too close to home. We are faced today with a similar tough decision. But we must clearly understand our options. It is not a question of war or no war; it's a question of war now or war later, war now on our terms, or war later on theirs. Our present enemy will not be dissuaded. And, yes, just as in '38, the war later will be against an even more formidable foe, whose sense of power has only been strengthened by our obvious lack of will.

It is as simple as this: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. Ahmadinejad, like Hitler before him, has made his intentions crystal clear. We must take him at his word. We cannot rely on anyone else to solve this problem for us, certainly not the weak-kneed and conflicted UN. Certainly not the bumbling EU. And not even brave little Israel. If we are to save the ME, we must do it ourselves. We must have the courage of our convictions. We must have the courage to face down the bullying pacifists and the delusional equivocators.

By allowing themselves to be persuaded that the threat wasn't what it most assuredly was, by prevaricating and procrastinating, the Allies -- especially Britain -- were ultimately responsible for the loss of millions of lives.

We cannot allow ourselves to make the same mistakes again. -- rg

Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub.