Posted on 03/12/2006 3:53:46 AM PST by Hannah Senesh
Now there's a "nice polite" cover.
Who, in America, has the guts to use nukes on Iran?
...NOBODY?
The only advantage we have is that we have no interest in occupying any ground positions in Iran.
This allows for endless air strikes, even if the underground hideouts survive.
They'll get tired of life as a mole after a while.
Not *secret* anymore.
So they get a load of soldiers, load them onto small boats and then fling all the small boats towards the enemy warship. Wow what a cunning plan. I can't possibly see how that could fail.
"..its the knowledge that they can get away with whatever they like and however they like it that is very very dangerous."
Didn't this knowledge on the part of someone or another pretty much precpitate and or complicate every war in the 20th century?
Backing and appeasing KILLS.
I am sorry, but if you think it through he did what he had to do. He could not attack Saudi Arabia because Iraq's oil was off line and to deal with Saudi Arabia (largest producer of oil) before getting Iraq (2nd largest producer of oil, not to mention in possession of WMDs and a reason to supply terrorist) back up and running would have sent the world economy into chaos and probably started WWIII.
Lets not forget that the minute our soldiers went into Iraq we got our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The thinking at the time was that Saudi Arabia would fall into civil war, we would not have to take care of them. If you remember the CIA was calling the princes dead men walking, at the time. Instead we have watched those same princes doing their best to kill every insurgent in their country before they themselves are killed.
We are also strategically located, having Iran surrounded on 3 sides and on the boarder of Saudi Arabia, to deal with either problem and they know it.
Why take care of Iran until Europe is fully helping? Sitting back and making Europe do the pushing is brilliant, no longer the world against the US and makes China and Russia rethink how they are going to deal with the situation. All know the situation will be dealt with but we are playing the diplomatic game right now, like before Iraq, to try and fend off WWIII which is very possible since this involves the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world. Having the US in Iran without them being their also is not in their strategic interest, and we have proven that if we think something needs taking care of we will go in without their support.
As for Syria, small fish for the time being. Besides they are sending their terrorist to be killed by our troops exactly where we want them and not to the US killing innocents. So until they use Saddam's WMDs or supply any to terrorist they are way down on the list.
What makes you think Wimpy Bush would go nuclear on Iran?
Wimpy Bush told us and the world exactly when we would go nuclear at the beginning of the war on terror and we will not be the ones to start it.
Nukes will get used when a nuke or a WMD is used against us first and if it is a terrorist organization using the weapon then we will go after the country that supplied the weapon.
Wimpy? Public opinion does not even sway Bush when he thinks something is right. There is much more to be thought about and reasoned through than our simplified version we get daily of world dealings. I do not agree with everything he has done but blast it, wimpy is the last thing I would call this man.
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.