Posted on 01/29/2006 4:13:58 AM PST by RWR8189
"Nuclear destruction in the US is pretty big fallout for Conservatives, too. What do you suppose Republican election chances will be if we lose Chicago and Boston Harbor or Tel Aviv?"
Through in LA/San Fran and NYC in those nuke hits and it would be Conservative landslide. ;o)
The war with Iran very likely will weaken USA. As a result it will weaken Israel and Israel will be forced to modify its basic policies in the direction of radical compromise with Muslim neighbors and to established closer relations with the European countries.
_________________________
You seem to be fearing current conditions. America was not made weaker by war with Japan and Germany. It was made the most powerful nation in the world.
In this current climate the people of America have not sacrificed their comfortable life styles. They have not struggled with shortages that radicallly change their daily lives. They have not suffered the loss of hundreds of thousand of young people. These were the burdens of the war with the Axis. Are we capable of less than our grandparents? Is less demanded of us?
If Bush has failed to rally us to sacrifice it is because the demand for sacrifice is not yet required. The day will come when we will know that we are at war....
<< The war with Iran very likely will weaken USA. >>
Not so.
America was a hundred times stronger in 1950 than in 1940 - and it wasn't ONLY that Roosevelt was dead and the Roosevelt Depression finally over.
Iran will be as easy as was Iraq.
And Syria even easier.
The perception is that the Iraq war is troublesome but our cause over there has not been defended vigorously enough.
I doubt we could present even a remote possibility of another conflict with another Muslim terrorist country in the middle east without the 'Rats, MSM and the public in general going nuts.
Some wars makes countries stronger, some make weaker.
Three months ago we didn't have options. We had to wait for their next move. Now we are very close to having casus belli to go in and slay the beast. Then everything will be ok. We can't take out the weapons. But we can take out the regime.
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat...
Americans support military action by almost 60% already. If we are to have the oil cut off, perhaps it's better that it is done via war... then we will band together and unite for a while. I don't fear the election consequences. Not when it is a national security situation.
Fascinating. Could you describe, how you imagine this campaign, please?
Not too sure I agree with you on this one Brian. War with Syria would cause "general" indifference in the US- as their standard of living would be uneffected (although the national debt- a tax on future generations- would rise yet more). So yeah might well be "easy".
But hitting Iran is in another ball park altogether. Spiralling oil prices after such an event would make the 1970's OPEC inspired oil price hikes and the recessionary impact it caused look like a walk in the park.
I don't think the vast majority of people are willing to take a massive hit to their current comfortable life styles.
I personally think that in 5 years time Iran will have nukes- as North Korea do today. Then we'll be in an even worse position- but hey the average american will still have cheap gas. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, but his buddies that ran the various defense contracting companies were pretty happy......
Classical American Air War doctrine.
The fallout from an Iranian nuke detonated on our soil by terrorists would be far worse.....
Yippee-Ki-Yee-Yi-YAAAAYYYYY!!!!
I'm with you, IronManBike, and I'm with My SAVIOR!
Each generation, that must face those bad times, either deals with them, in a meaingful way, or perishes.
This isn't just about the rationing of gasoline, donating aluminum pots to the war effort, or sending dad to war and mom to the factory.
As was in WWII, this is about the survival of the nation and a way of life.
Sooner, or later, the American public will wake to that fact. We better hope it is sooner.
Like 1999 bombing of Serbia? It lasted three months, accomplished very little (the compromise - ie temporary occupation of Kosovo, which was later reneged by NATO, was made possible only because of Yeltsin government), it was done from the large bases located very close and the target was 16 times smaller than Iran.
If you have the concrete idea how this air campaign is to look like, present it, please. Using the Serbian campaign as a reference you could suggest:
How much hardware will be available (compare with 1999)?
What distances will have to be covered, which airbases will be used(compare with 1999)?
How long will it last (compare with 1999)?
What will be the physical results whether military, nuclear or civilian (compare it with 1999)?
What will be the political resolution (compare it with 1999)?
What will be the political and economic cost, and what will be the gains (compare it with 1999)?
Bush is a great poker player. He's got both Ahemjad and Chavez ranting and raving like crazymen while he just quietly tightens the screws. He will not show his hand, but it is a lot stronger than these silkstocking pundits know.
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.