There's a couple of them actually.
Posted on 01/22/2006 9:18:26 PM PST by FreeKeys
Well, after 9/11, when the war on terror officially began, it was obvious that first step would be Afghanistan.
After bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, the question became who was next? Iraq or Iran?
Saddam Hussein became the next choice. Unfortunately, right after the fall of Saddam's regime, we made spectacular blunders that we are still paying for. Iraq's problems have slowed us down severely thusfar.
If we had made better strategic decisions immediately post-Saddam, Iraq would have gone much smoother, and Iran may have already been taken care of by now.
We don't fire warning shots.
Ironically, Clinton did that in response to threats being made by Saddam Hussein, in the event he used biological or chemical weapons against our troops if we had to invade to bring him into compliance with various UN resolutions.
Of course, since this was under the Clinton Regime, the Dems forget all about it and claim that Bush lied...blah...blah...blah.
Like the poster..where did you find it?
Their positions are marked on the Big Board.
Mistakes are unavoidable. The fact that we were (and still are) sabatoged by the Left has slowed us down more than any mistakes that we've made.
If Iran decides to play with the big boys, then it has accepted that responsibility. For better or worse, this is their choice.
A "first strike" nuclear attack from America is justified and would be the wisest choice.
The insurgency in Iraq fighting our troops right now are primarily from Iran and Syria. They are trained members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. who have snuck across the border. I would think that rather than using the Iranian army, the Mullahs in retaliation to a strike against them would try to send as many terrorist militants as possible to sneak into Iraq to join Al-Zarqawi.
Damn straight! The jets have to get there first, which means that air defenses must be silenced. When has the USAF ever done it's job lightly? Heck we should get rid of all our trash here in the States...just pack it up in a c-17 and dump in in their sandbox. America's environmentalist wackos would be proud!
The most effective way to send out the announcement that an attack on Israel would be considered a danger to the national security of the US, and that we would retaliate is for Joe to do it.
And frankly, it's Joe's obligation to do it...dance with the ones that brung you.
The American Jewish support for the DNC is important, and Joe's obvious choice to rattle the sabers for the left.
If we were talking about Cuba instead of Iran, the saber rattling would come from Ros-Lethinen, the Diaz-Balart brothers and the rest of the Cuban contingency in DC.
OK, re our troops in Iraq, perhaps so. I'm starting to like the sound of an EMP attack onn Iran more all the time.
Let's hope our air power works better this time. The raids on the ball bearing plants just slowed them down and didn't have any appreciable long-term effect on war production. The U. S. post-war Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that people were easier to kill than machines.
Namsman sends.
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
"Executing a nuclear option, or even a portion of an option, should send a clear signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options must be selected very carefully and deliberately so that the attack can help ensure the adversary recognizes the "signal" and should therefore not assume the United States has escalated to general nuclear war, although that perception cannot be guaranteed."
>Maybe the market tanked because the spit is about to hit the fan...
If israel attacks iran all hell will break loose in the ME and it's gonna be a long, long conflict if Russia and China come to Iran's rescue.
We are living in very interesting times.
There's a couple of them actually.
"We don't fire warning shots."
We fired two in Hiroshima and Nagasaki..
How did America ever get into this situation, where only manned aircraft are used for a first strike?
North Korea, you are next!
Hey, Jacques Chirac has been playing the loose canon as of late. Maybe he's out to impress his new mistress what a real toughguy he is or somethng. Maybe his garlic was just a little strong that day. Who knows?
But France has been talking the talk lately. Personally, I'd like to see them taking the lead and showing off Europe's new military might. With his numbers tanked like they are, maybe playing the world's savior would be to his benefit.
(I can't believe I just wrote that.)
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.
