Posted on 01/26/2006 2:38:37 PM PST by Dark Skies
War now, or a nuclear Iran later. Hmm.
I know I'm going to take flak for this, but from the beginning I wished President Bush had gone after Iran first.
I'm aware of all the arguments and rationale, but that's just the way I felt.
the problem with that is we had to get rid of the nrighborhood bully first, because Saddam's actions are unpredicatble. He could have inserted himself into that situation in a variety of ways.
While the Iranian leadership prepares to burn us all, the US Senate fiddles with hearings on the legality of wiretaps.
Of course. We now have the Mexican Army crossing our border with armored cars and heavy machine guns. Why worry?
Iraq is a base from which operations can be launched against Iran and Syria.
(Even if it's fake...)
Actually, I think Saddam was the easier target (less of a rat's nest - although that's like comparing two bad smells -they both have to be gotten rid of)
Sorry, you can't have a different opinion...whaddya think this is, a free country?
Oh wait, this is a free country.
Which is the number one reason I support the move against Iraq.
No flak, just a comment from the strategic viewpoint - far easier to invade Iran from the Iraqi desert than to orchestrate amphibious landing from the gulf with all the french Exocet and Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles Iranians have.
But if it comes to that, the gloves will come off. We only saw a couple weeks of air bombardment last time. This time the bombs will rain until the mullah's don't have but two rocks to call a building.
This sounds like a VERY tough nut to crack...
This is SERIOUS.
"...the decision to let the Europeans play nuclear footsie with the mullahs in Iran for more than two years was a terrible blunder. Pacifist evasion is what the world has come to expect from continental Europe, but the decision by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, to become an enabler to their procrastinations was of a different order of strategic error"
So there it is. Europeans blaming the US for alowing Europeans to be Europeans. Can't say I'm surprised.
Separately, have you ever read an article that uses the prefix "un" so many times?
The decision to invade Iraq was forced by necessity, as will be seen. Iran at that time was not the immediate threat but just a swirling cesspool of incoherent political thought out of which monsters emerge now and then. If Iran is now an immediate threat rather than just an oozing breeding ground, it will be dealt with. A bombing campaign with no ground invasion may suffice to reduce Iran once more to fangless malignity and if the Persians can then recover their country from the invaders, so much the better, but it isn't a done deal.
Iran was a bit different then and also the invasion into Iraqn back then would have had to come from Afghanistan or by sea.
Now we have more options for which to move troops by.....
Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf....
I didn't think it was a fake.
I pulled it off another site some time ago, but hey, maybe.
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.