Posted on 02/24/2007 4:37:37 PM PST by Pokey78
And it won't have it either. Contrary to the 'hoo-rah' gang, the financial leaders and markets (the ones who hold the real power) have had enough. And it is also becomingly evidently clear that more within the administration and those surrounding it while not speaking publicly are voicing their opinion (a correct one loud and clear). Cheney and Bush can rant all they want and get the shrinking war support base whipped into a frenzy but make no mistake. There will be a diplomatic solution to this.
AMEN!!!
We'll be praying for you, jude.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, we are not fighting 2 wars, we are fighting one war, the war on terrorism, and Iran would simply be the 3rd front in that one war.
The US could easily defeat the Iranians in ground combat. The only issue would be what we'd want to do with that nation. Hopefully, we'd just leave after we destroyed their nuke capability. (The Iranians couldn't defeat the Iraqis in 10 years. We defeated the Iraqis twice in a total of about 3 weeks.)
Any idea that generals would quit is idiotic. Generals won't quit. That's just ignorant.
Wow....these little green (gray) guys really called it spot on.....a year ago! March 17th....2006 !
"The likely outcome is that the US will threaten and bluster, plant evidence against Iran that the US citizen and the world does not believe, rumble tanks and planes up to the border of Iran, and there the conflict stops. There will certainly be tense moments behind closed doors when the military is asked to take steps they refuse to take.............."
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/zeta268.htm
How much do you want to bet that those people you describe have literary agents or similar advisors who are helping those generals jockey to the CNN talking head posts.
I think some of those officers have a Lady McBeth at home. (or a Hitlary Clinton)
How much do you want to bet that those people you describe have literary agents or similar advisors who are helping those generals jockey to the CNN talking head posts.
I think some of those officers have a Lady McBeth at home. (or a Hitlary Clinton)
Are you nuts? The last thing we need is another failed Middle Eastern state. That'd make things even worse.
Is their anyone lucid enough to understand that Generals made these statements.....probably on direct orders from CinC?
Or are memories so damaged as to leave no understanding of what it is to squeeze an enemy?
Under all these conflicting messages, Iran remains under TREMENDOUS pressure. One slip, one mistake, and we will bomb them back to the stone age. While avoiding mistake causes Iranian leadership to look weak, like a little bitch complaining about the bullying they are getting from the big bad USofA.
Of course these statements were made, and I wish someone on this forum understood the tactics of a psychological war.
It might also be known that while we may not have many available troops, we have more than enough bombs to turn the country of Iran into a smoking hole.
What is wrong with you people?
Dont answer, and I wont stick around to read it. Just grow up, dammit.
I hope and pray you are correct. Unfortunately, the President has a lot of power to direct troops where he likes. Congress can do little more than jerk funding.
'Preciate it.
No it wouldn't. There is a fairly healthy, educated, respected opposition in Iran. We don't need to stay.
We break their nuke capability and leave. That's all we need to do.
And this silliness about generals....what'd it say, four or five....those guys are not quitting. They've lived their whole lives for such a time as this to make a difference.
and what does that mean?
Sheeeesh, ya try to interject a little martian humour into a thread and someone like you comes along with a hair across their azz and spoils everything.
lighten up.
>>Enemy propaganda.<<
Do you thin is originating in the U.K or is it coming from the U.S. but planted in a U.K paper?
I'm thinking that if its British in origin then it may be mainly about justifying to the population the apparent decisions for the Brits to not help in Iran.
But if its coming from either American Generals themselves or opponents of President Bush using the military and the foreign press to do it then they are really undermining the President's ability to apply leverage on Iran. They may wind up causing the war they claim they oppose.
The mullahs are not gonna turn into nice guys - the only hope to not have military confrontation is for Iran to believe that we will fight and that they need to avoid a war with us and that it would go very badly for them.
If this turns out to be Americans undermining that effort then they deserve exposure and (at a minimum) disgrace.
If the President wants, he has all the authorization he needs in the Sep 18 Resolution. As you see how it was applied in the Iraq Resolution, it is clear that it was broadly interpreted. There would be no legal basis against this President if he used the Sep 18 Resolution.
Now, could he prove Al Qaeda or particular person ties to Iran?
I think it would be fairly simple. I'll also bet they've been putting that case together for better than 4 years now. Iran, not Iraq, has long been considered the leading supporter of International terrorism.
Did you read the resolutions I posted?
Good thinking on their part. Then, when the Iranian a-holes attack us here and around the world with nuclear weapons, they can say,"Gee, guess maybe we should have hit them first, huh????" Very brave of these moron generals. I still advocate unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strikes now against Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Of course, everytime I express this personal opinion the Admin. Mod deletes the post. Oh well!
There was one in Iraq too. That didn't stop Iraq from degenerating into sectarian chaos. It only takes a small, dedicated minority to turn a struggling state into a failed state. Without a massive occupying force - one much larger than the shoestring one we tried in Iraq - Iran would be doomed to become like Iraq.
The problem is that, because of Iraq, America has become a paper tiger. Without a massive ramp-up of military strength (i.e., drafts and rationing), we could not fight a third war. Nor could our country, our economy, or even our military function without access to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil - sources which would be shut off to us in any serious altercation with Iran.
Right now, we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place. There's not much we can do to Iran beyond diplomatic pressure.
If Bush tries that, the 9/18 resolution will be repealed. Those moves are already afoot.
Plus, he would have no legal basis under the UN Charter to invade. We can't just invade another country's territory without the UN's authorization.
No retirement either.
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.