Posted on 11/15/2007 5:54:33 PM PST by america4vr
I don't think President Bush is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, not before the presidential election next November 4, and not between then and the day he leaves office the following January 20, either.
As reckless as he is, I don't think he's that reckless. He wouldn't make a move that could set off WMD missile wars, invasions, coups, Islamic revolutions and whatnot all over the Middle East, then just fly back to the ranch and let somebody else clean up the mess. If Bush was at the beginning of his term, he might do it, but not with time running out, and not when he's heading into the sixth year of two Middle Eastern wars he can't win and can't quit. And that was the situation before this month's state of emergency in Pakistan reminded everyone that Iran isn't the only country where Islamic fanatics could get the Bomb; Pakistan already has it, and the Taliban is that country's rising power.
Bush has to ask himself: What effect would a US attack on Iran do to the situation in Pakistan? Would it strengthen the Taliban even more, would it bring them closer to taking over a nuclear-armed country of 160 million people?
What are the arlternatives? MAD Mutual Assured Destruction as the strategic cornerstone of survival during the Cold War seems to have those with the greatest to lose with an Iranian nuclear capacity, specifically Israel, to consider just such an option in face of the prospect let loose as described.
Despite the mullahs proclivity for sending others to die a martyr's death they themselves are not so willing or ready to die. MAD is thought not to be effective with a terrorist-jihadist mentality as Iran but it is the individual, oppressed, poor or disillusioned that have been blowing themselves that having a better life just as the mad mullahs are privileged to enjoy would have them less inclined to die as martyrs.themselves.
Amazing.
Almost every single sentence is exactly backwards wrong.
If we fail to disarm them, it causes prolif in the region. Are Sunni Saudis really going to say cool— the Shia revolution has nukes now.
The author suffers from BDS.
Seeing that Bush gave the U.N. 19 FREAKING months or so to deal with the dead idiot, Saddam, I would have to wonder how long must we wait so that we are not tagged with the word "reckless" by any members of the liberal press?
Isreal might.
Sorry, that’s where I get off.
Actions have consequences. So does inaction.
How, exactly, do you rate the consequences of a nuclear Iran?
Those bear consideration, as well.
Hey...what did Germany do to the United States leading up to WWII? Didn’t stop us then.
Do you really consider 3,900 deaths in a 4 year war a worst case scenario? If so, I wonder how you would classify WWII or the Civil War?
They declared war on us. And no, it didn't stop us from returning the favor.
MAD isn’t an alternative. I think the author may be right. I don’t think Israel will allow Iran to go nuclear, so it’s important America be prepared for the retaliation directed at us worldwide after an Israeli strike.
I don’t think we’ll bomb Iran not because it’s a bad idea. I just think the administration is too busy with Iraq, AF and Pakistan right now. There’s just not enough minds to think of Iran. We might have some covert operations into Iran to test their reactions and gather more data.
People don’t realize this at all. Immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor Hitler unilaterally declared war on the US, an inexplicable act considered one of his greatest blunders. Some say he did it out of the agreement he had with Japan that stated to go to each other’s aid against another country. Still, Hitler could have very wisely remained neutral.
Particularly given his obvious willingness to betray an ally, Russia. I doubt he considered the cost, things were going pretty well at the time. Enemies have often mistaken the essentially peaceful personna of America for lack of courage and will.
Should also have noted that from a German perspective the idea that America, confronting a Japanese enemy in the pacific, might well come to terms rather than confronting the Reich militarily. The idea that America should have confronted and defeated the Japanese aggressor before turning to Europe was a rational one, and would have given the Reich several years of breathing space.
Some, the operative word. John Bolton has made the case that had we aggressively aided the Iranian opposition, covertly and overtly, we might be well on the way to solving the problem.
Covertly, that's nasty, a nation that frets about waterboarding simply won't do it.
Israel preparing for nuclear Teheran (Olmert prepared to accept Iranian nukes?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926328/posts
Hitler was known to play cowboys and Indians as a child. He admired America for what they did to the native American Indian, taking away their land the way they did. Not surprising from someone who made no secret of Germany’s need for Lebensraum, plans to usurp lands to the east to expand the Third Reich’s living space.
You’re right, of course...I was hoping that since his grasp of current events was so shaky, his knowledge of the past was even worse. So let’s phrase the question another way — on December 6, 1941 would the United States have been justified in going to war against Germany?
My answer would be yes — the very foundations of freedom were being attacked all across the globe, and - -despite what the isolationists argued — we had a stake in that fight.
The same thing is happening with worldwide jihad. Iran has been at war against the United States since 1979. As a key propagator of jihad — along with a well-known program for nuclear weapons — it seems like we should strike when appropriate. We aren’t obligated to fight every bad nation in the world, but when it’s in our interest to do so, it’s better to hit them first before they can hit us back with nukes.
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.