Posted on 03/04/2003 12:25:55 PM PST by ex-snook
I don't think for a minute that this is a true statement. We are likely doint a great deal to destablize Iran. In the most recent elections, the turn out was extremely low. Did we have something to do with that? But if you would like more action to liberate Persia (Iran) perhaps you should be patient.
Its called RESEARCH while the elections were indeed low the Military is still controlled by the Religious Leaders.
It was noted in the December 2000 Global Trends Report produced by the National Intelligence Council who reports to the Director of Central Intelligence that; "Iran sees its short- and medium-range missiles as deterrents, as force-multiplying weapons of war, primarily with conventional warheads, and as options for delivering biological, chemical, and eventually nuclear weapons. Iran could test an IRBM or land-attack cruise missile by 2004 and perhaps even an ICBM or space launch vehicle as early as 2001".
With regards to Iraq the report states, "Iraq's ability to obtain WMD will be influenced, in part, by the degree to which the UN Security Council can impede development or procurement over the next 15 years. Under some scenarios, Iraq could test an ICBM capable of delivering nuclear-sized payloads to the United States before 2015; foreign assistance would affect the capabilities of the missile and the time it became available. Iraq could also develop a nuclear weapon during this period."
CIA Director George Tenant in his February 2nd 2000 report to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding "The Worldwide Threat in 2000: Global Realities of Our National Security" stated. "Iran in the next few years may be able to supply not only complete Scuds, but also Shahab-3s and related technology, and perhaps even more-advanced technologies if Tehran continues to receive assistance from Russia, China, and North Korea". Director Tenant further explains "Some of these terrorists are actively sponsored by national governments that harbor great antipathy toward the United States. Iran, for one, remains the most active state sponsor. Although we have seen some moderating trends in Iranian domestic policy and even some public criticism of the security apparatus, the fact remains that the use of terrorism as a political tool by official Iranian organs has not changed since President Khatami took office in August 1997".
Note the phrase "the most active state sponsor" with reference to Iran not Iraq.
The nuclear plants will give the Iranians just want they need for those "BALLISTIC LAUNCH VEHICLES" they already have. While the only thing 911 changed was here at home. The Iranians are very advanced in their weapons platforms and WMD systems.
You mean the Kubol campaign since that is the only City in the entire Country that is somewhat secure.
You have been misinformed. We can project power to any point in that nation and subdue any adversary in a matter of hours.
Of course the people do, but you can't go up against the Guard with sticks and stones.....
Misinformed? Project power? Subdue? Yea, the Russians tried that too and they failed. You better stop listening to talk radio and try reading a history book. Like the "Otherside Of The Mountain".
I can't believe you would say that. One of Pat's relatives died in a Nazi death camp (He fell out of a guard tower and broke his neck)
Snookie, the non-sequitors the ad hominems of the replies do not detract from the value of this thread due to this one above PJB prediction. It is spot on and I hope everyone writes it down in their Palm Pilot so that they can say that they read it here first.
Thanks for the post.
I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction that PJB didn't consider: I say mismanagement of the domestic economy will preempt Juanterm's decision to pursue either scenario. Just like Somalia, it'll be somebody else's headache.
Well let me go out on a limb too. I DON'T THINK BUSH WILL INVADE IRAQ. Kofi will be credited with a face-saving exit strategy for all. I still have confidence in Bush - I don't think he is that stupid.
As for leaving the troops around. Well we have had troops at the ready for 50+ years in Europe and Asia. He has got to work on two things big time to get re-elected. (1) get the country back to a peace-time production based economy (2) start the Palestine State peace process.
Nah, Dubya has painted himself in a corner and won't go along with anything credited with Kofi.
Now if Robert Zoellick came up with a face-saving trade deal, Dubya would leap at the alternative. Something like paying top retail price for all of Saddam's WMD using our SS funds. Saddam might go for that.
That's good Willie. Might add passing the bill onto the future generations. I love it when a plan comes together.
I've read Buchanan's books, and I don't remember his writing this. Could you tell in which book, and page number please?
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.