So, preemptively attacking a country that has not attacked anyone is now OK with the Left?
> 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.
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.
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
Serbia.
To the extent it was preemptive, the war with Iraq was OK with the NY Times, at least until it was won by our great warriors. The leftists, like this writer at the Telegraph, are OK with a pre-emptive attack when they think they might be a target AND you take care of it for them. However, after the hard and dangerous work is done, you will still be a bum and ruffian.
(Kipling wrote a poem, “Tommy,” short for Tommy Atkins, about this same pusillanimous attitude among the same class of Brits. http://faxmentis.org/html/kipling.html )
After seeing how the worldwide leftists have vilified Bush after doing what manifestly needed to be done, I think we should just learn to “let go of our fears” as the lefties like to say. Almost certainly the nuke attack is going to be on some Blue state’s theater district or some EU lefty paradise. THEN we can obliterate them with nukes. (Tehran, Medina, Damascus, Cairo, pick a couple more.) I’d save Mecca as a bargaining chip for their abject surrender, then nuke it if they don’t.
And, as another poster noted, ground bursts should be used, so that like the Romans’ salting of the earth at Carthage, no one can live there again for centuries. This is a problem that cannot be solved easily, but it can be solved simply.