Posted on 04/18/2006 3:09:54 PM PDT by Candor7
This week Iran presented the US with the ultimate challenge and Washington must now make a decision. Is it fighting to win?
Since the September 11 jihadist attacks on the US mainland, President George W. Bush has stated repeatedly that the greatest threat to global security is the specter of rogue regimes and terror groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction. At his January 2002 State of the Union address, the president declared that the regimes of Iran, North Korea and Iraq comprised an axis of evil and a central goal — indeed the most crucial goal — of the US-led war was to prevent them from acquiring or maintaining arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.
......................
This week Teheran threw down the gauntlet. The greatest battle of this war - the battle to prevent the world's most dangerous regime from attaining the most dangerous weapons known to man — has begun. The moment has arrived for President George W. Bush to make clear if he is, in the final analysis, the leader of the free world or its undertaker.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
A liberal is a liberal whether they call themselves Jewish or not. For a liberal, allegiance to socialism supercedes in all cases any other identity.
In terms of our own security, a successful strike on Israel would be devastating, depriving us of one of our most valuable intelligence and defense technology partners, to say nothing of the fallout that would come from such a clear failure of our security policy, not only in that area of the world, but globally.
It's not up to the US to protect Israel; the Iraeli Government can do that just fine, thank-you-very much.....they should be able to do so; we gave them the nukes to do it.
Don't the clear, repeated statements and actions of the Iranian regime, to destroy the US and annihilate Israel, combined with their unmistakable quest for nuclear weapons and their status as the most overt sponsor of terrorism in the world, suffice to meet this requirement?
I agree. If we strike first, the casualties may be just as high as if they strike first.
A first strike on Iran's part may fizzle. Even if it doesn't it will make retaliation a moral imperitive.
Bush's opponents and detractors are hoping he strikes first so they can tear him apart.
Words from a fanatic are one thing (remember Bagdad Bob? Huh?). Actions are another....
They may suffice. That will be confirmed when the Israelis strike them HARD or just nuke them and really get it over with.....
You are completely nuts.......
Where in the line you quoted does it say, "...a successful strike on Israel?" You are a single minded cretin hell-bent on your attitude that everything we do in the mid-East must involve protecting Israel at all costs and anyone who disagrees is either a neo-NAZI or is anti-American...Israel can take care of itself.....
Congress is more likely to declare war on Bush than on Iran.
An excellent example of "wild claims" (post 38) and "unsubstantiated reports" (post 39)
Blinded by their multicultural dreams, liberals cannot see a bigger struggle, the clash of two cultures.
This clash will end badly for us if we allow the 'death culture', radical Islam, to acquire nuclear weapons.
BUMP
Why don't you do a search on the NUMEC Corporation in Pennsylvania and how they "lost" 200 lbs of enriched uranium? They did not completely do it from start-to-finish on their own....
I'm not against dealing with IRAN as a threat to the US, but I am against blindly tying that act to "how does that affect Israel?" I'm not a Jew-hater; I have great respect for Israel and their capabilities and their ability to act in their own interests (even if it means spying on their allies -US). I just don't like our foreign policy being controlled by internal factions with external allegiances.
Agreed!
The problem in a nutshell:
Quote:
From Charles Krauthammer via Bill Hobbs:
The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest - i.e., national selfishness - is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those which are morally pristine, namely, those which are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest.
Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States.
Unquote
Unfortunately most Americans do not like pre-emptive attacks especially after the MSM hammered Bush on the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
I agree with others on this forum that there must be a provocation, either real or manufactured.
BUMP
This is madening to the Iranians who make sweeping statements such as " the earth will turn red with rivers of American blood...etc" and Dubyah makes NO response at all. This means they will continue whipping themselves up into gretaer and greater frenzy, as our war ships ail up close to their boundaries in the Gulf to taunt them.
One of these days soon the Iranians will attack a US Man of War, and then the action will begin.
The American public knows very little about all this and when the Iranian attack comes, it will be portrayed by our president as a surprise attack. And indeed it should be.Although I do not believe we need a repeat of the non attack that brought the Dimocrap Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was instigated by Johnson.
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.