Posted on 11/15/2011 4:00:55 AM PST by nikos1121
Is a vote for the Republican Party in 2012 a vote for war?
Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?
Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and "prepare for war." Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue "taking out" Iran's nuclear scientists -- i.e., assassinating them -- but military action will probably be needed.
Newt is talking up uber-hawk John Bolton for secretary of state.
But if Iran represents, as Bibi Netanyahu is forever reminding us, an "existential threat," why does not Israel itself, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, deal with it?
Bibi's inaction speaks louder than Bibi's words.
He wants the Americans to do it.
For the retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, calls attacking Iran "the stupidest thing I have ever heard of." He means stupid for Israel.
Why? Because an Israeli attack would be costly in planes and pilots, and only set back Iran's nuclear program. And such a pre-emptive strike would unify Iranians behind the regime.
As for the United States, the only way we could eliminate Iran's nuclear program would be days of air and missile strikes.
Iran could retaliate by cutting off oil exports and mining the Strait of Hormuz, tripling the world price of oil, and hurling the European Union and United States into recession.
And why should thousands more Americans have to die or come home to be fitted for metal limbs so Israel can remain sole proprietor of a nuclear weapon from Morocco to Afghanistan?
And where is the hard evidence Iran is acquiring nukes?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
We don’t need to go to war with every enemy but keeping the threat on the table has value in itself.
“Hard evidence” will be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of incinerated humans.
And as far as Israel being Iran's target, we are the "Great Satan", not Israel. Pat hates Jews so much it blinds to the hard realities of the world.
ONly, one thing, Pat. Nothing like the “threat” of war to put your adversary on notice. Nothing like having ships in striking distance etc to persuade someone to think twice before they act against you, unlike the meely mouthed, wishy washy numbskull we have in the WH and his SOS.
Hard to argue the points made against it to.
Do we just sit and watch as Iran takes over the entire Middle East?
If Iran makes the first strike is Israel any better off than if they had made it?
Hard evidence is that M Korea does have a nuke and they are working with Iran.
For every argument Pat makes there is a counter argument.
It’s clear that Pat really hates Jews and Israel. Hitler would be proud of him.
Lets not forget Obama’s war either.
I admit the media isn’t paying much attention to it, but we are still in Afghanistan, and men are dying.
LLS
And yet the alternative is to go for appeasement, maybe a little ‘hope’ thrown in for good measure. I mean, surely, if the Iranians manage to make a nuke or 3 they wouldn’t use them, right? Right?.......
Rotsa ruck sneaking mines or anything else into the Strait of Hormuz. Once hostilities start, the Strait will be under such heavy surveillance that it might as well be high noon, 24/7.
I’m not an advocate for going to war against Iran, but the current tract of making nice with them isn’t working. Being a little hawkish seems like a far better tract than the current one. Doesn’t mean we have to go to war against them.
Two strong cultures can not co-exist.
One has to be so strong the other does not risk being destroyed.
We are slowly allowing ourselves to be weaken while the other side grows stronger. Like it or not, we are already at war.
The other side knows it, our political elite either are blind, corrupt, or stupid (or all of the above) to pretend otherwise.
There was a period in the beginning of WWII that was called the “false war” because nothing much was happening. We are at that stage now.
Our political leaders are going to allow the other side to strike when they are the strongest and we are at our weakest, will we be able to survive? I would like to think so but not with the current leadership (of both parties)who knows.
We may not have a choice in the war—Iran has been a thorn in our side since 1979. Soon we will have to make a grim choice on who to side with—One nuke in Israel would see so many deaths, and the counter strike by Israel upon any attacking nation would be terrible indeed. A case could be made that stopping Iran’s A-bomb will save Iranian lives as well as Jews. Does anyone want the first Nuke War to happen in the Middle East? Such an action will be a bloodbath—the final outcome of all the propaganda and hate put forth by the radical Jihadists.
That's why Pat will be called Nazi and anti-semite!
Why would Iran attack Israel? The instant they do and their entire country will be turned into a glass parking lot. Oh, that's right, the Iranians are suicidal, lunatic untermensch willing to sacrifice themselves, their children, and their entire civilization just to kill the small portion of the worldwide Jewish population that resides in Israel.
I’am all for bombing when there is a direct, palpable threat to our security.
But only after we close the border, which should be our security issue No. 1.
And no more endless, foreign occupation, nation building fiascos costing us the lives of brave soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, particularly for 6th century ingrates who hate us as much when we leave as they did when we came in.
LLS
Buchanan loves America most. He would make a far better president than any other currently running Republican candidate.
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.