Posted on 09/15/2006 11:10:51 AM PDT by Froufrou
Edited on 09/15/2006 11:20:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not ``leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.
The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ``It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
am guessin that V.P. has influence on Pres.; that's all.
LOL! Me, too! What a mess this poor old world is in.
Carolyn
We know this how?
Because Hezbollah has been ejected from Lebanon's government?
Because there have been massive street demonstrations against Hezbollah in Bruit (as there were against Syria two years ago)?
Because we are reading news reports of spitting and cursing villagers refusing Hezbollah aid in rebuilding?
Because the governments of most other Islamic states are issuing daily denunciation of Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon?
Because Lebanese public opinion is forcing Hezbollah to disarm?
No one likes to be on the receiving end of an fective air campaign against their country's basic infrastructure, or to be even temporary refuges forced from their homes.
But that's not the same as blaming Hezbollah for their situation.
For example a poll taken last week shows that the Lebanese population is split almost evenly of the question of whether Hezbollah should be disarmed – about the same as before the war – and The UN secretary-general was jeered in a Shiite suburb of Beirut last week – a pretty good measure of Shiite Lebanon's endorsement of UN hopes of disarming Hezbollah.
According to every report I've read – including those in the Israeli press - the fact that Hezbollah after weeks of punishing attacks of Israel was still launching missiles for as little a two miles north of the border increased their creditability on “The Arab Street” because they were absorbing punishing attacks but continued to respond with attacks of this their own.
You can't apply “western” standards when attempting to predict or understand the effects such measures upon "honor societies" - in this case it appears that the greater the damage inflicted by Israel on Lebanon, the greater the “honor” of the Hezbollah “resistance” and the civilian “martyrs” who died in Israeli attacks.
We'd better get some refineries too, since we ain't built any here since 1976.............FRegards
Actually I heard Iran has almost zilch in refining capabilities.
"so we would be looking at an open-ended occupation of Iran"
Not of Iran, just their oil fields. THat is my WHOLE point. We can forgo a messy occupation and nation building type venture. We cut off their funds and destroy their nuke capabilities. They will no longer have funds to support terrorism. They will no longer have a military to suppress the populace.
True they would be more mad at us than the mullahs, but who cares?
CYP
Read the whole thing -- it's even-handed.
Agreed. All the anti-Bush sentiments the Libbies have harbored and fed ad nauseum will make things even worse. I hope their stubborn stupidity won't drag us down any further.
Does the recent price drop in gasoline have anything to do with our potential "energy independence"? We have 5 ethanol plant under construction in Ohio. (We can debate the efficency of products later.) But, with that and the recent oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, would cheaper product make it less attractive to invest in alternative fuels or new oil fields?
Iran? I'm still concerned about Russia!! Putin is doing a good job of creating a hedgemony by using Iran.
And let's not forget China. I saw elsewhere that they're about to colonize part of Africa!
Hahahaha, looks like an MC Escher drawing!!!
I like your ideas.
Imagine , though , the world reaction to us following your plan . " USA invades to capture oil fields " !
With what? In case you hadn't noticed a huge chunk of our military is occupied right now.
The mullahs would be cut-off and their government would collapse. No more petro-dollars funding their mad dreams. The oil market would suffer a serious jolt, but would be back to normal in no time.
Wasn't that what was supposed to happen in Iraq?
I like the plan however, a couple of things might mess this up.
Iran using nukes to stop us or a major power(s) that decide to get involved. Otherwise, it might just work!
"Wasn't that what was supposed to happen in Iraq?"
Well not exactly. We literally conquered the ENTIRE country not JUST THE OILFIELDS.
We actually hunted down and captured the leadership, instead of just cutting off their funding and destroying their military power.
We actually attempted to govern and enable democratic elections rather then simply weakening the government and allowing nature to take it's course.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
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.