How would we have responded if, somewhere in the mid 1940s, Mussolini wanted to visit Pearl Harbor?

No, it would never have been allowed and certainly not over half of this country would embrace nor consider it diplomatic to even allow a heathen like this to step foot on American soil. And yet, so many are doing it with open arms and seem to think that this is okay.

I'm sickened by these people who refuse to take their heads out of the sand to see what reality truly is. I'm not certain which is more dangerous. The enemy from within, or the enemy abroad.

What you're experiencing is fatigue . Fatigue erupting from frustration . And the frustration is confounding because you also feel the threat from Iran and Radical Islam as truly dangerous . Compounded by the fact that you are rational and almost half of our country is not . That's understandable considering the position that our country is in . But relief is in the works .

I have zero doubt in my mind that we have completely outlined a definitive attack on Iran . Their radical islamist government , military sites , and nuclear facilities will be eradicated in a massive strike previously unseen in this world . Syrian targets will be eradicated as well . Long before information was leaked or even hypothesized for this scenario , I knew this day was coming . Not because I'm some kind of sooth-sayer , but because it's inevitable considering the predicament that we're in . We ARE gonna die unless we take drastic measures . The U.S. will be defeated unless we take drastic measures . The enemy CAN destroy us unless we take drastic measures . WMD's have made that possible and even likely unless we take drastic measures . And that is the over-whelming difference between WWll and now . Hence the reason for 'perceived' delay .

I was wrong about exactly when this would occur as I thought the attack would come this summer . Now I realize , and intel seems to confirm , that the attack on Iran and Syria is coming within a different timeframe , probably between now and next spring . But no later .

We will be victorious but planning for this massive definitive attack is far more complicated than Truman could've ever imagined . When this happens we must be 100% successful or nearly 100% successful in a matter of days at best . Retaliation with their best capabilities is a certainty . Attacks from terrorists within our own country are a certainty as well .

Can you even imagine all the possibilities that must be planned for in advance ? We've gotta simultaneously ensure protection for our troops in Iraq , our ships and planes , and our CITIZENRY right here at home . That has never been a consideration in previous conflicts . Truman didn't have to plan for wmd attacks within our country . Truman didn't need to consider that some evil idiots would retaliate and attack our schools or our malls . .. . . . . . our stadiums , our parks , our cities , our air , our chemical plants , our nuclear facilities , our festivals , our football games , our baseball games , etc, etc.

This is the big one pal . This is the one that previous generations could only imagine and thank their lucky stars that they would never have to face . This is the ultimate scenario . So although I share your frustration , I'm slightly more patient and understanding considering all the possible scenarios that absolutely must be 'covered' .

And although my patience wears thin , I'm vividly aware of the unconscoinable ramifications of reacting too soon . Perhaps knowing or remembering what George Bush really believes, can be a consoling factor for you . He truly believes, and rightly so, that he must be the one to finish the job just in case a 'less firm' or less aware president were to succeed him . He feels this over-whelming responsibility because of terroristic realities coupled with his knowledge of biblical prophecies . Agree with the bible or not , that's your choice , but also understand that we're talking about what the president believes and not what anyone else believes .

Ya know , just a couple days ago I was talking with a friend discussing our likely coming attack on Syria and Iran . We both know it's inevitable and we both know our attack must be definitive . But I asked him. . . ."Hey Robert , we both know this is coming soon and we both know we'll win , but have you considered what it'll be like after we suffer the inevitable terrorist attacks within our country and what the world will be like without the Radical Islamist regimes in Syria and Iran "? He paused and then reality hit him as well . We don't 'know' what the world will be like . But we do know that the world with change dramatically the day we take action . The world will be a different place , for better or for worse . And likely, the things we discuss or worry about today , will seem small compared to what we worry about then . A whole new set of rules and hopefully a better world .. . . . . . . . but no guarantees.

The Lord spoke of these days saying 'Fear not , for your redemption draws nigh' .

Pray my friend .

I feel as you do,but there could be another side to the story and that is. Intelligence gathering, when the PUKE from Iran arrives he brings with him many of his top aides etc--our intel people may be working behind the scenes and just maybe they can get to one of his top people (we all know people can be bought) just look at the Democrat party. Getting back on subject--what better place to gather intelligence than at the United Nations--so many people wanting to be top dog don't ya know.

So, could be just maybe a real effort to plant a mole inside the PUKES government....Just a thought

One last thought,

As far as the Socialist Democrats go,well they love fellow Socialist-so I expect they will keep their mouths shut and dream of the day when they will be able to join hands with Osama-and the rest of those Middle East thugs and rejoice the defeat of our military after all George Bush is the real terrorist right?? (so says our current government MoveOn.org) and shadow president George Soros

Several flaws in the question.

First, between Pearl Harbor and the removal of Mussolini from power, there were three days when we were not officially at war with Italy. We are not presently at war with Iran.

Second, at the time that Mussolini was removed from power, Italy was not a member of the United Nations. Under the treaties in which the United Nations located their main headquarters in New York City, guaranteed the right of the head of state of any member to visit the United Nations.

Under our treaty obligations, we must allow the President of Iran to visit New York City. If a university in New York City believes that it would benefit their student to hear from the President of Iran, that is their decision and is protected by the First Amendment. I personally believe that this President of Iran (unlike some of his predecessors) has nothing useful to say to students at a university.

While we have to let the President of Iran come to the United Nations, we do not need to arrange for him to visit any particular site. As such, I see no need to let him appear at the World Trade Center. However, I would further note that Iran opposes Al Quaeda almost as much as we do. Al Quaeda considers the Iranians to be heretics as they practice the "wrong" form of Islam. Of course, contrary to the position of some in this Administration, the enemy of my enemy is most certainly not my friend.

I think Truman would have soundly condemned the President of Iran. He would have also recognized, however, that allowing him to visit and allowing him to speak was about us being faithful to our words and our values. I fully expect whatever the President of Iran says to be untrue and distasteful. Our values dictate that we allow him to say it and then call him on it.

We would have arrested him, because we were at war with Italy. In fact, Italy was a war-making ally of Japan, the country that bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place.

Oh wait! By the mid-40's, the war was over and Mussolini was dead!

All of which is to say that you are REALLY stretching if you think WWII Italy and contemporary Iran are analogous situations.

We would have captured him most likely.

We are not at war with Iran now, he had nothing to do with 9/11, after the Iranian elections he will be a bad memory.

So his visit should not matter, he wanted the refusal for political gain.

Carp Kid- Read WWII history before you say ill-informed things like that.

Ever Hear of of Thomas Dewey?

I'd like to see Ahwannajihad at groundzero, lean over to look at a open footing pour, and disappear under a few tons of wet concrete. One weasel down, a few thousand more to go. Mussolini likewise. But unlike Mussolini's Italy, Iran won't fold with his removal, it would be more like removing Hitler, possibly prolonging or even losing the war, because Hitler was a strategic blunderer, as Ahwannajihad promises to be.

Seems many don't get the analagy you have portrayed here. Typical of liberals. See and hear only what they want.

Hey suthrnlyts it's not the sand they have their heads in!

To be honest, if Harry was president at this time, Iran would be no more. They didn't call him "Giv'em Hell Harry" for nothing.

Obviously that would have never happened in WWII because the political parties set aside their differences and worked together to WIN. That is not the case today, only one party is working toward victory, not defeat.

Excellent question!

Honestly, though, I don't think such a thing would have even been an issue. I don't think it would have been at all accepted in the 40s. People used to take pride in America.