Posted on 01/22/2006 10:35:24 AM PST by HHKrepublican_2
Will post story ASAP
FNC showed pictures of young Children forming a chain\shield around the Nuke Faciity.
Thank you for explaining that to me. Others seemed to think we'd have to use nukes to take out their bunkers. I just can't see us doing that. Maybe Israel might have but they won't need to since we share weapons technology with them.
Sometimes there is "collateral damage." Seriously, they think that American public opinion will prevent us from targeting their operations.
They may be right.
I'm almost sure it's a fake Nuke Faciity.
The question, though: Why would they want to put children around a fake Nuke Faciity?
For a lot of reasons, I think the world will be much better served by a ground operation that seizes the nuclear facilities (or what is left of them) and topples the mullahs. Not easy, but Iran is a source of terrorism and radical islam. Even the Europeans seem to recognize how dangerous. Bombing the nuke sites will just set them back, not stop them. And they are likely to take counter-actions. Best to nip the bud.
You probably do mean Khashayar who appears to have been banned.
I'm no atheist, but only fools think they live in the end times - it's pure escapism, almost as if these people hope they won't have to face some future point in their lives.
Historically, the success rate for predictions of the end of the world is 0%.
Israel already warned Iran, today, "do something about your President - or else"!
If Clinton could suprise bomb a factory in the Sudan and an empty terror camp in Afghanistan when we were not at war with them, on the pretense that they were involved in terror, when it was obvious to the world that it was to distract from Monica Lewinsky, then George Bush can justify a strike against Iran under the current circumstances.
Where did I post anything that would lead you to believe that I don't think President Bush has the right to bomb Iran??
An E-bomb to neutralize all electronics etc. - Great idea, better than my more aggressive suggestions posted yesterday in another thread. Does the E-bomb not have to be a nuclear device itself? Not that I mind.
From reports from all over, the choice comes down to either send an armada to bomb some 5,000 military sites, destroy about 345,000 of the regime's Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) or go on "chatting" with Iran and end up with tens, actually multiples of tens of millions of US and European casualties. Just as happened with Hitler who ended up costing more than 50 million dead (if I remember correctly) in World War II.
Plus according to some estimates today, around 10 million dead just in the Middle East alone if Iran is not dealt with adequately.
Even worse is the danger of Iran upsetting the currencies of the world with the new Oil Bourse (Exchange) they are setting up in March and causing an economical global crash which could lead to hundreds of millions out of work and starving in the USA, in Europe and around the world as a domino effect takes place.
Iran has built many sensitive sites buried beneath towns and populated neighborhoods to protect them with unwilling and innocent human shields. Collateral damage is inescapable, though in some instances we can provide an early warning to residents for those targets to move out without harming our attack plans.
While we might feel sorry for those innocent people, should we not feel equally sorry for the hundred thousand times greater death and misery Iran will cause to the rest of the world? Compared to the thousands who die in collateral damage in Iran, tens of millions will stay alive around the globe if we act as required.
I report, you decide.
Supreme Ruler Ali Khamenei used to be "the man" till Ahmadi-Nejad became President and put his IRGC military commanders into all executive and military positions of power way down to middle and some lower level positions.
Both Khamenei and former Pres Rafsanjani risk being arrested by the new militarist power base for corruption and dereliction of duty toward Islam.
Can't count on any of them, nor the previous power structure, to have the will let alone the ability to counter Ahmadi-Nejad - short of killing him and his mentor Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi. Ahmadi-Nejad holds all the trump cards for now and does not have to conform to the rules, though he may not be ready to have a civil war yet.
Same here. Plus their women are lovely.
exactly. I hope we do the Northern Alliance thing and support them overthrowing the mullahs. Our bombs are accurate enough that we will not endanger them. It would also send a clear message to the mullahs that they cannot unite the people against us.
True. But I am sure they know it is coming and will move out of the way.
The B-61 Mod 11 is the only one we have and that is only meant for soft soil and shallow targets. President Bush wanted one that would go deep enough to fully contain the blast and radiation but the RATS and RINOs killed it.
Proof that the Geneva Convention is nothing but garbage and yet another "treaty" that only we adhere to.
Re your #20 -
"Large number of Iranian athletes, many of them holders of national titles in different fields of sports, on Sunday afternoon held demonstrations..."
Remember what Saddamn's boys did to their soccer players who lost a game?
These "Athletes" no doubt knew what would be the fate of any of them who showed the slightest hesitation in their participation or enthusiasm in said "demonstrations".
Maybe the dissenting Iranians are just so overpowered by the Mullahs that they've resigned themselves to whatever fate they bring upon the entire population - children and all - and are too intimidated to resist.
Perhaps they figure that death by nuclear incineration is better than a slow, agonal death by torture at the hands of the Iatollah's goons.
Or do they just lack the cahunahs to mount an "insurgency" against the powers that are dragging them towards an almost certain extinction?
I don't know... do you?
Their best chance for survival seems to be in fighting for their lives against the lunatics controlling them, not the majority of the rest of the World.
But if the World's survival requires catastrophy - as tragically it might - for the Iranian people...
Then alas, that's how it will probably come down.
Re your #37 -
"...They'll have our support, of course."
I would certainly hope so.
But then again, I will not be betting on it.
Saudi Arabia, methinks, has a lot of influence about where we go and what we do to whom and how.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.