Posted on 10/26/2007 2:26:10 PM PDT by blam
Regime change by arming internal elements might not be a bad follow up.
He says we have 3 carriers in the region? That’s news to me. I’d say that the clear signal of our intention to strike would be the arrival of a 2 more carrier groups into the Middle East.
There were only four Neocons. This is one of them. It’s like beatniks: there were only four of them but an entire generation was labelled because of them.
I think these so-called “neo-cons” should give it a rest for a while. Their prognostications about Iraq were so utterly off-base that they don’t have any credibility left to render opinions on U.S. foreign policy anymore.
once they were convinced Iran had passed the point of no return with its uranium enrichment programHow can we know when that point is reached? It's impossible to know for sure. If we're going to do this at all, it should be yesterday. Or today. Next week at the latest.
Fmail me a history lesson on the prognostications when you have time. I’m serious, not kidding. Thanks AC.
Your May Day Parade invitation is in the mail and you should expect a Christmas card this year from your pal Vlad Putin. And maybe even that speaking engagement at the next ANSWER convention and a date with the member of your choice from Code Pink (maybe she’ll shave for ya!)
Sang this same song just before Christmas 1979. The Iranian kidnapping of the hostages started in November.
Norman Podhoretz is exactly right; no other options will be successful except force. They should have been taken out years ago. Let Iran bluster; if they move in Iraq, they will be annihilated.
The conflict will not end with the taking out of the nuke facilities... but it will move things along. This ‘Islamic Problem’ will linger until it either reforms... or destroyed like a rabid dog.
Maybe you should stay in Canada....and STFU about American business..
We need to destroy their Army and special forces. We need to sink their Navy’s surface vessels and submarines. We need to catch their Air Force and civil aircraft on the ground and destroy them and their airports. We need to destroy their only gasoline refinery. We need to destroy their secret police and their political leaders. And most importantly, we need to completely destroy ALL of their nuclear facilities to include the support infrastructure for same. We need to seize all of their offshore oil facilities and start filling up American oil tankers to pay for all the trouble THEY have caused.
This is a tall order but we need to do this and soon!
If I were a Canadian you might have a point, fella.
Then quit talking like one, or get the hell over to the DUMMY board where you belong...if you believe Iran can be swayed by “diplomacy” you are an idiot...plain and simple, period!
What a load!! you have a nice short term memory!! If I might add!! Can you count the democrats that led the charge along side the alleged Neo-cons and do you really know who the real neo-cons are?? check your facts, they are all Scoop Jackson Democrats
my post was directed to Blam, sorry to offend anyone else
“One way or the other, we are determined to
deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use
force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what
happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us
or our allies is the greatest security threat we
face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI),
Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked
on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons...”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam
Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear
weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the
course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has
had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading
an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Instead, he questioned the urgency and scope of the problem -- based on the faulty intelligence we had on Iraq. Or, at least, we think it was faulty...we can't be sure.
His position is a valid one. Before we do what's being proposed, we've got to be absolutely sure that it's necessary.
Personally, I believe that it will become necessary to take military action against Iran -- some time in the intermediate-term. But, without access to the nature (and quality) of the intelligence, we've no way of knowing that for sure.
Personally, I also disagree with AC on whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. Even in the absence of WMD, I believe it was.
Nonetheless, his position on Iran is arguable, legitimately conservative and should be respected.
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.