Posted on 01/26/2006 2:38:37 PM PST by Dark Skies
The 'you' was generic. Not saying you were.
Yes, i think all followers of Mohamad and his culture of convert-or-die are criminal and should be eliminated. You have a good point, but not all of Iraq is muslime.
I fully support the WOT. Pull back or inaction waiting for concensus among those who have no vision of the consequences of inaction is not an option. That is exactly what muslimes want. It's not just to defend Israel.
But if they do, then we'll blow them to smithereens.
"If they do" is too late. Standing by and letting these Islamofascists develop nuclear weapons would be unforgivable. But I agree that we're certainly not showing any signs of "invading", but we've got plenty of bombers...
Well, my only response to that is that we did not have that reaction when the Soviets got the bomb, when Pakistan got the bomb, when China got the bomb, or when North Korea got the bomb. If we did not attack then, I can't see why we'd change course now, absent an actual use of the bomb by Iran, or perhaps a clear signal that they were going to use it, and that we therefore needed to pre-empt.
I think that there are really two possible outcomes of a conventional attack on Iran: 1) failure, or 2) victory, but only at the cost of a large number of American lives.
I don't see any President choosing to go the conventional route for that reason. And we're not going to attack them with nukes just because they might get a nuke. That leaves as the only remaining strategy that we will do nothing but rattle our sabre until they actually use the bomb, and then we won't feel compelled to restrain ourselves.
The only other possibility I can see is a stealth action, such as if the bird flu suddenly became an epidemic in Iran, or maybe if they met with an "accident" where an atomic bomb apparently went off prematurely at their key nuke facility, killing most of their nuke scientists.
The majority of Iraq are Shia muslims, Iran is pretty much hallowed ground for them.
My granddaughter thinks the world should get rid of all nukes. I explained about the cold war. Horrible as they are, we need them as a powerful deterrent (the WOT enemy movers and shakers can hide out, but their supporters all can't) and we may eventually have to use them if we haven't totally wimped out by then. No thanks, keep our nukes, the more the better, hope that cool heads prevail. I don't buy this peace at any price, and if we are going to get nuked, we'd better fire some serious stuff back.
That's one of their strategies, get us in such as a way that we won't know who did it. By that time, I'm not sure I would care as I'd have a pretty good idea who didn't do it.
I don't like wars, but if we have to fight, we'd better fight to win or deliver a punch such that anybody would think twice before messing with us again.
Our social structure is so unstable, I don't know if we are going to survive anyway, but we'd better give it our best shot. Oh well, I've said enough on that.
No, not all of Iraq is Muslim, but many Muslims there support us. That is not to say they aren't being fair-weather friends and will turn on us down the line. I truly believe some appreciate what we have done for them and won't soon forget it. Their courage in the face of the insurgency should inspire us here at home. I'm not going to be consumed by hatred of them as a whole, even though I think the religion is a cancer on the planet. Too bad so many are being taken in by it.
Better no religion than that one as far as I am concerned.
Russia, spread out such as it is had some advantages and had built shelters for some of their people. We made a half-hearted attempt, and some people built their own, then it all petered out, as usual.
Um, we didn't fight the French at all in WWII.
Dustin' off my DCU's........
I understand your points, however:
1) The Soviets were already tested subscribers to M.A.D. (Cuban Missile Crisis)
2) Pakistan is checked by India, and isn't a threat to our oil supply.
3) North Korea also isn't a threat to our oil supply, and would probably vaporize Tokyo if we attacked.
4) China subscribes to M.A.D., at least as far as we can tell.
Iran is completely different. This is Hitler with a nuclear weapon, and willing to give up Tehran to fulfill an eschatolgical prohecy. The swift diplomatic condemnation of Iran by limp-wristed countries like France should be proof that this is not anything like the aforementioned situations around the globe. And if, God forbid, this clown was able to get control of Saudi oil... Do you think he didn't recognize Saddam's blunder in not taking the Saudi oil fields during the First Gulf War?
"Those who say war is unthinkable are right. Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. They will, quite probably entrench and harden the Iranian regime. Even the young, hopeful democrats who despise their theocratic rulers and crave the freedoms of the West will pause at the sight of their country burnt and humiliated by the infidels."
I DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. SLOBODAN MILOSOVIC WAS NOT EMBOLDENED BY THE NATO AIR STRIKES ON SERBIA, IN FACT SHORTLY AFTER THE STRIKES HE WAS TOPPLED FROM POWER BY YOUNG FREEDOM SEEKING IDEALSTS. I REMEMBER WATCHING BROADCASTS ON FOX SHOWING YOUNG SERBIANS STORMING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN BELGRADE DEMANDING MILOSOVIC AND HIS HENCHMEN'S OUSTER. MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE YOUTH OF IRAN MAY BE ROOTING FOR US QUIETLY.
Well, the Soviets and the Chinese were not subscribers to MAD right after they got the bomb.
I think the reason we don't attack NK is that we know that it will prompt the madman to use the bomb, which is the very thing we're trying to head off. Why did we not atack before he got it? Probably because we were afraid of taking on China.
I guess the reason we did not do anything about Pakistan is that Clinton was President.
The only thing that causes me any hesitation in my conclusion that we are not going to do anything is that we all know very clearly that if Iran gets the bomb, then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Turkey, and half the rest of the middle east will not be far behind. I suspect that prospect may tempt us to act, but my gut still tells me we won't.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Iran will do something stupid, like attack us first. Then of course we'd respond.
War now or nuclear war later. I think the choice is obvious.
Then we should use the tactical nukes. Its either that or they nuke us.
The first army we fought in WWII was the Vichy French Army in North Africa.They didn't hold up too well and then we collided with the Germans.
Troop deaths would NOT be that high. Yes there will be fatalities as in every war. But it is better than the alternative. Economies will heal over time. However, nuclear weapons must not be allowed to get in the hands of suicidal mullahs.
Agree. And yep Persian women are absolutely lovely :)
Ah, right. I just don't normally think of a puppet government of Nazi collaborators as the French. My mistake.
But like I said in my earlier post, the same argument could have been made when the Soviets got the bomb, when China got the bomb, when NK got the bomb, when Pakistan got the bomb.
Yep. The Navy and Air Force. We will not need ground troops for a country we do not intend to occupy.
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.