Posted on 04/27/2008 5:35:51 AM PDT by knighthawk
Ping
What I’ve said all along - Israel is the solution where an Iranian nuke is concerned. Does anyone think Israel will just stand by and let a madman bent on their annihilation acquire nukes? Didn’t think so.
What if the weapon was constructed from a hodgepodge of “stolen” devices... and no sole signature is apparent? Further... that the theft of these “devices” is made public well in advance of the nuclear event?
So, preemptively attacking a country that has not attacked anyone is now OK with the Left?
Hmmm .... North Korea is closer to nuclear bomb production than Iran, and every bit as irresponsible’ they even ALREADY have missiles that can reach the US, unlike Iran.
So I guess the author is really calling for an attack on North Korea .... clearly its bomb-threat must be eliminated now, for the safety of our cities ...
> So, preemptively attacking a country that has not attacked anyone is now OK with the Left?
A city doesn’t necessarily need be the target.
The nuke refining facilities are out in the boonies.
A small nuke there would be fine. Casualties kept to a minimum and the world learns that we will use a nuke if provoked. We haven’t used a nuke since 1945, nobody believes that we ever will. So, threatening to retaliate is not a threat.
Uh...the author is British. The Telegraph is published in the UK.
The Taepo Dong 2 can’t reach the UK.
North Korea is a bad actor to be sure, but they haven’t done anything close to what Iran has done in terms of sponsoring Jihadist terrorist groups for decades.
Attacking a person who is threatening someone else with death is not a “preemptive” attack. Other than Obama and Jimmah Carter, everyone left and right agrees that force needs to be used to prevent Iran from developing nukes. If we wait until they actually have them, it will be too late.
My comment was directed at people on the Left who hated Bush more than than they hated the necessity to protect the country from what at the time was considered to be an obvious threat. Indeed, even today, the Left (as well as Ron Paul) utter complaints about attacking Iraq, even though Iraq had not attacked us.
Yes, because we are going to be at overt war with Iran (we're already in a covert war that they started) sometime in the future. The longer we put it off the less our chances of succeeding without a more massive loss of life and the more time they have benefits those mad mullah mass murderers who want to murder more with atomic weapons.
Plus, we'd have the covert backing of most of the Middle East because they're all scared of what will happen when Iran gets the atomic bomb.
War is going to happen unless the Iranian people can overthrow their government and return to peaceful ways and that doesn't look likely since the people seem pretty powerless.
The other gulf states don't look like they're going to take care of the Iranian problem. Now, they might be able to stir up a lot more trouble in Khuzestan (oil rich province) which is trying to break away from the rest of Iran and return to or become an Arab country. Al-Ahwaz is one of the main groups and frankly, I don't think Iran or Khuzestan would be in better condition in their hands. They seem terroristic and claimed at least some of the bombings in Ahwaz.
It's up to us and/or Israel because Iran is as real and viable a danger to us and the Israelis as it is to it's neighbors in the region.
Don't you study your Machiavelli and Roman military history?
War shouldn't be entered into lightly but it shouldn't be feared or avoided either since it's going to happen sooner or later. Better sooner while we are the stronger force. And believe it or not, the West and the United States are primarily forces for good.
To: Mount Athos
So, a preemptive strike on a country that has not attacked anyone is now ok?
2 posted on 4/27/2008 5:54:24 AM by theBuckwheat
Sure they have - but they didn’t use proxies, they did it all themselves, which makes it worse:
- kidnapping neighbouring countries’ citizens
- widespread espionage
- sabotage
- threatening war
- nuclear prolifieration (to Iran, Libya, Syria, etc.)
- ICBM proliferation (to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc.)
In short, North Korea is the source.
Why would you attack the symptoms of the disease, and not the disease itself?
And what's even worse is that because a 10 kT improvised nuclear device will be detonated literally at ground level, it also means Ground Zero will be essentially uninhabitable for at least a couple of decades, because all the dirt and debris blown up from the blast will be dangerously radioactive. (People forget both Little Boy and Fat Man were detonated several thousand feet off the ground to maximize blast effect, but the actual fallout generated was relatively low because there was no significant cratering of the ground below the detonation point. A more accurate example would be the nuclear tests done at the Nevada Test Site, where the bomb was detonated only a couple of hundred feet off the ground on a tower.)
What is this "international law" and why should a country that must defend itself be concerned with it?
“Governments, however, are not always able to control all their members. Some members of the Iranian administration might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear armageddon (indeed, some seem to welcome it). Which means that the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists it to keep them out of the hands of national governments who might give them to terrorists. {
“If Iran builds a nuclear bomb factory, you can be sure that Israel will try to destroy it. You can also be sure that, when it happens, the rest of the world will not object.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2007619/posts
Adm. Mullen: U.S. Preparing Strike Option Against Iran
newsmax.com ^ | April 26, 2008 | staff
Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:02:16 AM by kellynla
Making it crystal clear to Iran, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday that the United States is preparing for “potential military courses of action” against it if Tehran does not stop aiding insurgents in Iraq and fails to stop building nuclear weapons.
Admitting that a third conflict in the region would be “extremely stressing” for America’s military, he warned Iran that it was mistake to suggest the United States did not have the resources to strike Iranian military targets.
“I have reserve capability, in particularly our Navy and our Air Force, not just there, but available globally,’’ Mullen said. “There are lots of potential military courses of action.’’
Mullen made similar comments about the Pentagon’s ability strike Iran last November.
“From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don’t think we’re too stretched in that regard,” he said then.
Mullen’s comments, made during a Pentagon press conference, are aligned with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus, both of whom have stepped up the pressure on Iran. Gates said last week that Iran is “hell-bent” in acquiring nuclear weapons.”
You are in Canada. Your opinion is irrelevant. Since you have no military to speak of we should invade you and take some of your oil wells.
Calgary and Alberta would probably want to join the US anyway. Saskatchewan too. The Chinese can have British Columbia and the wise guys and Muslim lovers and socialists can have Ontario.
Ping on Iran and its nuke program. I finally got my ping list back off of my old computer.
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.