Posted on 09/08/2006 4:42:12 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Excellent! BTTT
The "free nations" statement stood out to me when I heard it. It is at once a clarification of the players (Iran as totalitarian, the U.N. as patsy, and the free nations as the forces of good). Unfortunately its not surprising what goes over the head of the MSM these days.
When exactly is this election in Israel? A coordinated action with Israel would make tactical sense.
"Recent polls show that the French electorate also thinks it rises to the level of military intervention if all other efforts fail to end the nuclear efforts of Teheran." Great but the leadership is thinking how to "surrender"?
I am sure all parties are hoping it won't have to go to general election.
I hope Bibi is right also, but I don't believe W will move forward on this.
The well has been poisoned over the last 5 years and I don't think W will risk it.
I agree although I don't think President W has anything to risk except the loss of an ally (Israel) or major American cities. I hope the loss would only be the UN on our shores but that is truly wishful thinking.
"I agree although I don't think President W has anything to risk except the loss of an ally (Israel) or major American cities. I hope the loss would only be the UN on our shores but that is truly wishful thinking."
The only real risk to Israel or American cities is if we wait too long. I feel that with our current airpower capabilities we could even prevent Iran from greatly affecting shipping on the Strait of Hormuz. The initial strike taking out nuclear, government, military and port assets in Iran would leave that country in a state of near-paralysis (and one hopes, revolt).
I think the administration has to deal with some tricky timing issues: we must wait 'til past the 2006 elections, past getting Iraq mostly stabilized, and yet before Iran gets the bomb. It would also be nice if domestic oil production cranks up some more first. ;-)
I strongly suspect we'll strike Iran before 11/08. Israel won't be involved, though Britain, Canada and Australia may pitch in.
It's a self-correcting problem..... it'll only work if Bush succeeds in pulling the country together behind his play. If he doesn't, the consensus falls apart, the 'Rats win, Hillary gets elected prez, and then a lot of 'Rat votes in "blue" (really pink) states get immolated by nuclear weapons: New York, Boston, DC, Miami, Chicago -- all on the "A" list.
'Rats better hope Bush succeeds. They'd better fight hard for him.
Stories on TV last night had Tony Blair promising to leave office.
Sorry, but as one familiar with the industry from the inside, it doesn't work like that. You need at least a year just to change directions. That's because leadership has shifted in the industry, which no longer calls its own tune. The money-runners in New York have been playing "Mother, May I?" with the oil industry for years now, ever since the Bust. It takes a at least year to run a need to increase production up to them, have them bless it, and then run it back down the wiring diagram and make it happen.
Every layer is another layer of delay.
Do not underestimate President Bush.
The Pres will not Bogart Iran. The contractors will take care of it.
Who are the contractors you speak of, you mean Israel?
Thanks!
We don't speak of the contractors. They know who they are.
Iran is a clear and present danger.
He is absolutely right.
Cavuto interviewed him yesterday. Grand interview.
Bumperoo
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.