Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Not until after the elections in Baghdad.
1 posted on 01/18/2005 7:02:26 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Happy2BMe

MEK (MKO) is a marxist islamist group. they are very dangerous to the US national security!


2 posted on 01/18/2005 7:04:14 PM PST by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

It's good to keep the mullah-queers guessing. I was very pleased with Bush stating he would not take military action off the table to deal with Iran's nukes. I'm glad Colin Powell is gone, so we don't have to hear him pussyfoot around it.


3 posted on 01/18/2005 7:05:49 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
ROTFLMAO!!!! Bush has got the left in a total snit.

They are soooo 20th century!

4 posted on 01/18/2005 7:05:54 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

Any article, especially one from the Guardian, that presents the argument as one being posed between "neo-conservatives" and "ex-CIA agents" is not what most Freepers would call "fair and balanced."


5 posted on 01/18/2005 7:08:35 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dennisw; SJackson; MeekOneGOP; TrueBeliever9; Geist Krieger; JohnHuang2; Salem; Sanch; ...
MAP TO WWIII - TURN AT THE INERSECTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS STREET AND ISLAMIC TERRORIST AVENUE - ping.

==============================================

"It is not a straightforward problem but at some point the costs of doing nothing may just become too high."

"In Iran you have the intersection of nuclear weapons and proven ties to terrorism. That is what we are looking at now."

6 posted on 01/18/2005 7:08:48 PM PST by Happy2BMe ("Islam fears democracy worse than anything If the imams can't control it - they will kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

But we sure as heck aren't going to wait until after we're attacked. Pre-emption is still the modus operandi.


9 posted on 01/18/2005 7:11:07 PM PST by P.O.E. (FReeping - even better than flossing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

When you have to shoot...shoot
dont ponder


10 posted on 01/18/2005 7:13:53 PM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"It is not a straightforward problem but at some point the costs of doing nothing may just become too high..."

That is it in a nutshell. On the one hand, the sort of nuclear weapons capable of production by a nascent program such as Iran's tend to be large, crude, and difficult of concealment. On the other hand, they aren't impossible to conceal and deliver; in fact, smuggling may be Iran's best bet to deliver them given the nascency of its missile programs as well. If the target is the U.S. then it's the only way.

The more immediate purpose of such weapons would be to inoculate the theocracy against overt invasion, but the necessity to use terrorist means to make the threat credible means that one threshold at least will be crossed the moment they successfully test a device. That is precisely the sort of threshold beyond which the Iranian government is convinced it will be invulnerable but in fact will necessitate action against it.

But the notion of using the Mujahideen Khalq is one that has been bruited before. These are not really our friends at all, despite being the enemies of our enemy, and using them will present the same sort of disadvantage a similar use of Saddam Hussein in the 80's presented. But if it does turn into a covert war they'll play. It may already have started.

12 posted on 01/18/2005 7:19:57 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

More third hand speculation, what if anything can go right with these upcoming elections 80% of Iraq is islamic, they will favor Islamic government hence another terror state!
While destroying Irans infrastructure and reactors sounds like a great idea, there is no end game, there is no endgame for Iraq either. I would like to see a huge portion of Iraqs population disabled as in made eunuchs or something to guarntee their future cooperation not just a slide into more Islamic hornet nests. Im sorry but it would be wise not to leave any potential suicide bomber standing in the Arab world, they are the enemy we can kill them now
or let them kill us later.


13 posted on 01/18/2005 7:21:35 PM PST by claptrap (Recent republican votes leave me wondering if they are all just republicrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

But I thought the neo-conservatives were run out of town by the searing intellectual criticism of Barbara (no WMD in my pants) Boxer ?


16 posted on 01/18/2005 7:23:51 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
President Bush's second inauguration on Thursday will provide the signal for an intense and urgent debate in Washington over whether or when to extend the "global war on terror" to Iran, according to officials and foreign policy analysts in Washington.

No, no... not whether. Just when. ;^)

Actually, a strike against Iran a couple days before the elections in Iraq might be just the thing to draw off foreign terrorists and send them scurrying back to Iran to fight for the home turf.

17 posted on 01/18/2005 7:25:07 PM PST by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"If I were a betting man, I'd bet the US will not use pre-emptive force. However, I would not want to bet a lot."

How about getting the mullahs running around like rats for a while. The Syrians are getting fat and complacent. and one morning Syria is surrounded.

It won't be the first time Bush used news liberals to our military advantage.

37 posted on 01/18/2005 7:43:29 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

I'd just like to know where the money for this one will come from. It's not like we're rolling in the dough with annual half trillion dollar deficits.


40 posted on 01/18/2005 8:03:33 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

We have unfinished business with Iran. And after the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, we certainly don't need another "hearts and minds" war. When we deal with Iran, it only needs to be Shock & Awe until they see the error of their ways.


43 posted on 01/18/2005 9:31:01 PM PST by SmithL (ex-Boomer Rider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

Well, I obviously question the sourcing of this article.

However, if we do go into Iran, it dang well better not be until the elections, and we should not plan on a full-scale invasion, at least for awhile.

I would not support a move that would lead to a draft.

However, we do need to bomb the bastards into the stone age and send special ops to aid in aiding an internal rebellion.


45 posted on 01/18/2005 9:42:12 PM PST by rwfromkansas ("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Shermy; Fedora; cyncooper; Cindy; Alamo-Girl; Howlin
This article's yet another attempt to attack Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans through the alleged source, "a former Farsi-speaking CIA officer" who the article says was asked by "neoconservatives" who apparently couldn't find anyone else to do the job, to join a mission. He says he refused the mission, and then admits he then decided to blab about the mission to a British paper. Presumably he is trying to blow the mission's cover and get it aborted by our side, or is trying to make sure anyone on that mission would be in danger or might get killed, which pretty much tells us what kind of a lowlife this guy is, assuming he even exists. Apparently he can leak without fear of violating federal nondisclosure laws, too. Is he real or is he T J Wilkinson part 2?

The OSP really gets their goat...

49 posted on 01/18/2005 10:01:10 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe

Now it's Iran's turn to be terrorized when we liquidate their nuclear facilities. They thought they were the only ones who could reach out and f with people. Now they are going to be spanked, taught a lesson. They are going to be given something to wail about in the UN with the Muslim chorus.

These wily Ayatollahs have been running terrorist operations for years aimed at Israel and the USA. Israel has suffered from Iranian state sponsored terrorism in the form of Hizbuallah and other outfits. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism in Iraq and sponsored that shi'ite freak Al Sadr.


57 posted on 01/19/2005 2:11:24 AM PST by dennisw (G_D: Against Amelek for all generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
  1. Launch a first strike in memory of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and taking of hostages.
  2. If they complain instead of surrender, launch a second strike.

63 posted on 01/19/2005 3:27:31 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson