Posted on 10/09/2005 3:34:36 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Unfortunately the only message the middle east understands is an Iron Fist in front of their face
The communists had a saying," Advance to the point of the
bayonet". Meaning take it as far as you can UP TO the point
of war.
THe Iranian fanatics believe they can absorb any retaliation
and survive, this makes them truely a threat.
This is what I have always been saying:
The only language the Mullahs of Iran fully understand is the language of force
Threat of force? Good golly, we can hardly bring ourselves to the point of threat of sanctions! Threat of force is a looooooong way off, and actual force would come so late as to be impossible.
Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that Muslims do not understand reason, and they do not understand threats. The only things they understand go "BANG", "BOOM" and "KABLAMMM"!
It's like my Mom used to say, "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet." Just think how many lives, us and them, would have been saved if we had been able to drop an atomic bomb on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor instead of three years later. It seems kind of counter-intuitive, but the best way to save lives is frequently to kill a bunch of the enemy early on, let them know from the git-go that you're not going to put up with their BS.
"Really? I'm not so sure about that. All reports show a dominating percentage of Iranians are pro-US and against the regime. And without a state sponsor (like the role Iran plays with respect to Iraqi terrorists), any insurgency is going to have it pretty rough."
We've heard this before. The Iraqi people will welcome us with open arms. Yea, well they did but the insurgents crashed the party and turned alot of the Iraqis against us in the process. I'm sure those elusive "Iranian students" will help out but by golly I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Insurgent somehow injects himself in the process. You have to remember that Iran has an ARMY OF INSURGENTS they're called the IRGC. These guys are a million strong. Obviously we would do it right this time and keep the army intact. While you might be able to accomplish this with the main army (who am I fooling, there is no way that would happen, they'll melt away and become insurgents) you can forget about leveraging the IRGC. Those are some bad mammajammas.
Listen, I'm to the Right of Bush on Foreign Policy but I'm also pragmatic. Given how our military is overstretched with taxing deployments, rotations, and equipment it is best not to even think about invading a country with a substantially larger border(more entry/exit points), a larger population who will be sure to think we're after their oil, and who have gleaned lessons from OIF. Forget about it. I'm as Rah Rah as the lot of you but fuggedaboutit...unless you're going to turn that country into a parking lot or a sea of glass.
The lesson I learned from OIF is that trouble comes from allowing malicious foreign states free reign to train, fund, and supply one's enemies. Iran and Syria are playing that role in Iraq. Who could play that role in Iran?
What I am saying is that the solution is NOT a full out war against Iran. We'll squash their conventional and nuclear forces but my worry is the peacekeeping and stability operations afterward. If you're willing to sacrifice 10,000 lives....say so.
I think failing to act will sacrifice a lot more than 10,000 lives - how many dead will result from the first functional Iranian nuclear weapon? And I seriously doubt Iran could manage to kill 10,000 US troops. Maybe 2,000, tops, if that. No insurgency there will have a bordering oil-rich terror state to keep it going, and the regime does not have and never did have the kind of dominating power over that nation as did Hussein in Iraq. Liberating Iran will be more like what happened in the Kurdish areas of Iraq than the Sunni areas - Iran is not an Arab nation.
"and the regime does not have and never did have the kind of dominating power over that nation as did Hussein in Iraq."
I read that as meaning there are alot more loose cannons in Iran than there are in Iraq. Even more reason to not engage Iran militarily. I see the point all of you are making and it is tempting to nip Iran in the bud. I just don't think we can handle the responsibility right now. It would be a nightmare. That's all I'm saying.
There's an alternative to doing it the way we're doing Iraq. We can destroy the military capability of Iran and punish regime targets without a full invasion. And if the opposition has the real willingness to move out the mullahs and establish a non-terrorist nation, then that's an opportunity for them to do so as well. With no Iranian supply of enemies in Iraq, that would free up a lot of resources.
I'd like to see the war plan that calls for a limited 'limited war' AND destroy Iran's military...in the next five years. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/
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.