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

Skip to comments.

Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity
TimesOnline (UK) ^ | 1/27/2006 | Gerard Baker

Posted on 01/26/2006 2:38:37 PM PST by Dark Skies

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-252 next last
To: Arizona Carolyn

The Iranians are complaining about predator drones in their skies. No wonder this makes them nervous after the successful operation in Pakistan with them this week. Didn't the girls in the senate nix the nuclear bunker buster research that would be strong enough to penetrate the hardened bunkers in Iran? That is where I would point fingers, I think.


101 posted on 01/26/2006 4:03:45 PM PST by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

I think this whole war has been about Iran.We have encircled that country now. We did not attack Germany first in WWII. First we fought and beat the French in North Africa.


102 posted on 01/26/2006 4:04:01 PM PST by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

...."Iran first....."
I agree 100%. I've allways felt that way and could never understand Bush's obsession with Iraq while Iran was sitting there much more dangerous than Sadaam.


103 posted on 01/26/2006 4:04:18 PM PST by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: griffin

The plan would have already been done and Iran would have caved, if we didn't have terrorist democrats in our nation.


104 posted on 01/26/2006 4:05:02 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (never surrender, this is for the kids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
Good evening.
"Imagine the damage if he had been re-elected instead of Reagan?"

You can be sure that our economy would have swirled down the toilet before his second term was over, and the odds are that Communism would have triumphed over us before collapsing or attacked us and then collapsed.

Is it just me, or does the peanut farmer give the impression that he hates the USA?

Michael Frazier
105 posted on 01/26/2006 4:06:56 PM PST by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
What amazes me is the Russian variable. Is it all about money with them or what?

Here we have a country that is fighting it's own muslime terrorist foes, but they are suppling others with materials and knowledge in the nuclear arena? Do they think they will get any benefits (other than the short term benefit of a few bucks, GNP speaking) from shackin up with the muslimes? I would love to see what is in Puttie's head.
106 posted on 01/26/2006 4:07:25 PM PST by griffin (Love Jesus, No Fear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies; derllak

I see the war described in Ezekial 24 or 25 materializing before our very eyes.


107 posted on 01/26/2006 4:08:28 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
"I can't see us invading a country like Iran with conventional forces. "

We just need to 'invade' a few places for a short period of time to knock out the deep bunkers then, back-out.

108 posted on 01/26/2006 4:09:00 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

There are only 2 real options, and which way we do it depends strictly on accurate intelligence.
If Iran already has deployable nuclear weapons (And I think that is a distinct possibility), you are correct.
If, however, it can be determined otherwise, only a ground invasion will do the job. It doesn't matter how deep they are buried when you carry the ordinance inside and light it from a mile away. It's the only way. I hear a lot of talk about "Bunker Busters", but I seriously doubt they will penetrate these facilities.
This is, of course, all based on MHO, not being an expert or having any intelligent data on what Iran has inside. Hopefully, W does know.


109 posted on 01/26/2006 4:09:22 PM PST by FunkyZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Not quite 600 days...

[From DOE - Strategic Petroleum Reserve Web Site]

Quick Facts and Frequently Asked Questions

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a U.S. Government complex of four sites created in deep underground salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast that hold emergency supplies of crude oil.
Inventory

* Current inventory: Click to open inventory update window
* Highest inventory - The SPR reached its highest level of 700.7 million barrels in late August 2005. The Hurricane Katrina loans and sales reduced it during Fall 2005.
* Current storage capacity - 727 million barrels
* Current days of import protection in SPR - 59 days
(Maximum days of import protection in SPR - 118 days in 1985)
* International Energy Agency requirement - 90 days of import protection (both public and private stocks)
(SPR and private company import protection - approx. 118 days)
* Average price paid for oil in the Reserve - $27.73 per barrel

Drawdown Capability

* Maximum drawdown capability - 4.4 million barrels per day
* Time for oil to enter U.S. market - 13 days from Presidential decision

Past Sales [click on link for more details]

* 2005 Hurricane Katrina Sale - 11 million barrels
* 1996-97 total non-emergency sales - 28 million barrels
* 1990/91 Desert Shield/Storm Sale - 21 million barrels
(4 million in August 1990 test sale; 17 million in January 1991 Presidentially-ordered drawdown)
* 1985 - Test Sale - 1.1 million barrels


110 posted on 01/26/2006 4:10:08 PM PST by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
Yes, but heres the thing:

When Iran has the bomb, to whom can that threat be credible?

Israel? Certainly.

Europe? Of course!

The US? Hardly.

But how about Mother Russia? Of course!

We, the leadership of Iran, recognize the Islamic government and our brothers fighting the infidel in Chechnya and support them totally.

Sorry, Putin is too smart not to know this, and Russia will give in if we don't allow this fall back position to proceed until fruition..

111 posted on 01/26/2006 4:11:17 PM PST by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

You are right. Tony Blair stood by George Bush and Britain shouldered a good portion of the burden of liberating Iraq (rightfully so since Britain in the 1920's post colonial era had a large part in creating "Iraq" and the social/cultural/political conditions that are so difficult to resolve there).

Britain is/was our only true ally in the western world and should NOT be mentioned in the same scornful breath as France and Germany.

Unfortunately the chattering classes and the press are equally insufferably arrogant in both Britain and America.

I also believe that, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, going against Iran will be untenable without full UN support. I believe that is why our Generals are starting to discreetly leak affirmation to the press that US troops are "stretched" in Iraq.


112 posted on 01/26/2006 4:12:56 PM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Flavius Josephus
Take down their command and control. Try to blow the head off the snake.

While we're at it, a surprise night strike against the mansions and Mercedes in the elite Tehran neighborhoods might take out a lot of the Mullah politburo.

113 posted on 01/26/2006 4:14:54 PM PST by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; jan in Colorado; USF; Dajjal; AmericanArchConservative; justche; Former Dodger; All

ping


114 posted on 01/26/2006 4:14:57 PM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

"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."

You are absolute right. In my humble opion the best order to deal with the axis of evil would have been:

North Korea - Iran - Iraq

After all it was Kim Jong-Il who was incredibly successful with only pretending to have a nuclear warhead (if he really had one, he would have done the same as India and Pakistan, test it first and then admit it afterwards), who encouraged Adolfinejad.

But that would have been a hugely unpopular campaign to sell that to the American public.


115 posted on 01/26/2006 4:16:18 PM PST by wolf78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero

Good analogy


116 posted on 01/26/2006 4:16:33 PM PST by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
I think the author is correct...war with Iran is unavoidable (Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have seen to that)
I wish Jack Straw who is the main Iranian advocate sees that. He is the main opponent of Iran going to the UN security council.
check this article in Boston Globe yesterday:

Don't go wobbly on Iran
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 25, 2006
''IT IS not on the table. It is not on the agenda. I happen to think it is inconceivable."
That was British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in September, telling the BBC what he thinks about the use of military force to prevent Iran's homicidal theocrats from acquiring nuclear weapons. Last week Straw went further, declaring that even economic sanctions would be an overreaction. ''I don't think we should rush our fences here," he told a conference in London. Much better to turn the whole thing over to the UN Security Council, so long as any action it might take ''is followed without sanction." What he recommends, in other words, is a Security Council resolution with no teeth. That'll fix the mullahs' wagon...
117 posted on 01/26/2006 4:17:25 PM PST by remuk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
One good thing about already being in Iraq. Heck of a jump-off point.
118 posted on 01/26/2006 4:17:38 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Brilliant writes:
It is unthinkable, unless they are proposing a nuclear war. I can't see us invading a country like Iran with conventional forces. Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would die, and would cost trillions of dollars.

The words of Winston Churchill:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

It is only "unthinkable" to dismiss an invasion with conventional forces if we are prepared to dismiss the notion of a nuclear-armed terrorist state as "unthinkable", as well.

No sanctions will stop Iran from its progress toward The Bomb now. They're too close.

No world opprobrium will have effect against them. They are too close.

Even a blockade of their oil ports will not stop them. They are too close.

There is only one thing that will quench the mullah's thirst for the power associated with possession of nuclear arms: The Bomb itself. And they are getting pretty damned close to having it at this point.

Having said that, there is only one solution that can STOP THEM from obtaining nuclear weapons at this late date, and we all know what that is:
Force.

Whether air power alone can inflict enough damage upon them to effectively block them from achieving their goals, I can't say. Perhaps nuclear air strikes would accomplish this, but I don't believe the United States, nor even Iran's sworn enemy of Israel, would risk the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike.

I daresay the ONLY way that may effectively end Iranian nuclear ambitions - not merely postpone them, but END them - must be an armed invasion that not only locates and destroys all their nuclear development strikes, but overthrows the Iranian leaders and nueters their military.

That means boots on the ground - hundreds of thousands of them. I don't believe the United States military is sufficiently strong enough at this time to accomplish this. Simply not enough feet to fill those boots. I could be wrong. Can one say, "draft"? (And by the way, I was drafted myself once, in 1970).

I'm just a dumb old guy. But I can see as much as I've said here. I'm able to see it because it's, well, obvious. Our leaders cannot see as much?

The Clinton administration disgracefully - traitorously - permitted the government of North Korea to go nuclear. But we would expect such malfeasance from them.

If the Bush administration diddles around much longer, I fear Iran may go nuclear, with eventual results much more devastating for the civilized world (as the author of the original article points out). What are they waiting for?

Remember Sir Churchill's warning!

- John

119 posted on 01/26/2006 4:18:51 PM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf....

Not sure we can count on Turkey, but we've got them East, West, and from the water.

120 posted on 01/26/2006 4:20:27 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-252 next last

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.

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