Posted on 11/29/2005 4:42:25 PM PST by saganite
------------------------------------------
You make this statement based on what evidence?
Preach it brother!
OK, let's say we send B-1 and B-52 bombers and take out Iran's nuclear installations as best as possible, while at the same time we destroy other key military bases or installations.
What is Iran going to do? Attack Manhatten?
Send an armada to invade San Fransisco??
They won't do crap but complain, cause they don't have the resources for an intercontinental invasion.
oh yeah, they might take some token actions against the nearest US Army base, which I am sure would be on the highest alert possible.
Bottom line: We would have destroyed the nuclear threat temporarily, and we would have sent a message to the lunatic Muslim fringe.
What other choice would we have? Let Iran continue to build and build nuclear bombs until the entire world is threatened with anniliation?
Couple of problems with your scenario. One, despite all the talk we have never won a conflict on airpower alone. Your scenario would bomb the crap out of Iran and leave a hostile government in place. You don't think they won't find a way to get payback? Second, look at Iran's best customers for oil. UK. Japan. India. China. All are on the list. None are going to support us in this. So you would have us go to war while still trying to prop up Iraq and I'm pointing out that we don't have the troops, or the allies to do it.
Preterist.
Doubtless, all Hell will break loose.
This is something I have been pondering for some time now; Iran seems intent on proceeding with its nuclear program. Israel will never allow them to complete such a thing, which of course means overt military action. The world is an extremely dangerous place right now, and personally I see the Middle East as a powder keg ready to ignite. Iran will be the focal point.
More than one preterist than me here I suppose.
Postmil too?
You'd have to give the scriptures themselves a rest then.
I think this is an overly optimistic statement.
"I think this is an overly optimistic statement."
quite agree. Iraq is looking shaky as the President talks of troop drawdowns.
I didn't realize that we have a friendly Iranian government in place at the present time. That is indeed new information.
"Better to let the dems get backed into the corner and having to support Bush when he decides to this rather than give them time to raise too much stink about it."
Are you looking clearly? It is we who are backed into a corner, not the Dems.
I think our best hope is securing Iraq before Iran develops nuclear weapons, and perhaps using it as a spring board for an invasion if we have to. I believe that with Korean help they may accomplish that goal before we are ready. Which leaves Israel to strike first, and I don't things are looking good with that scenario.
There are several churches open in Iran and ZERO in Saudi Arabia. 9/11 bombers did not come from Iran either.
"Israel will never allow them to complete such a thing, which of course means overt military action."
I'm not sure. Israel is totally preoccupied with Gaza---a tremendous security problem.
Taking on Iran depends on US support I think, which may not be forthcoming.
You could be right, I agree, but it seems things might slide.
Israel might look at it this way: an Arab state is bound to go nuclear eventually. Iran is developing ICBMs along with nukes, directly threatening the US. Wait and let the US handle it.
When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant, the whole world condemned them, including the US.
The Persian state will be nuclear before any Arab state.
What kind of logic is that???
5.56mm
Not big enough.....
7.62mm NATO Ball
M14 out of mothballs
M60 from the hip
John Wayne Style
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.