Posted on 05/22/2019 11:14:12 PM PDT by bobk333
The Pentagon is slated to request several thousand more U.S. troops be deployed to the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News on Wednesday.
No decision has been made, and it was not clear if the White House would give its blessing. The deployment could also include Patriot missile batteries and naval ships.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Something needs to be done about Iran. Sanctions will hurt them, but they, with the possible, even probable, help of Russ ia and China, will still be able to develop nuclear weapons.
Hit them hard. This will be much harder than Syria, but a Syria style aerial and high tech war could cripple Iran for decades to come.
First take out their military defenses: radar, anti-aircraft installations, runways, planes. Don’t tell or trust our so-called allies (who were part of Spygate, trying to take Trump down) until after the attacks begin.
Then take out the rest of the military and anything related to nuclear weapon development, still staying away from destroying non-military targets, so an alternative government can more smoothly take over.
If that’s enough, start taking out communications (cell phone and Internet), transportation (key bridges, highways, etc,) oil wells, refineries, depots, power stations, etc.
Then sit back and be ready to take out anything they try to rebuild.
It might take one or two hundred billion in spending, but it is well worth the investment.
John Bolton will have an even better plan. They should listen to him.
This will be a fun thread. :)
Ezekiel 38 is coming. I don’t pretend to know when.
IMHO, it happens before the Tribulation but it’s hard to prove.
Carry on.
Have you ever spent any time over there fighting? Have any buddies cough up their last breath in your arms?
The sweat, the flies, the Hell it is is probably just something you read about.
Try living it before you puff up your chest.
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!
[It might take one or two hundred billion in spending, but it is well worth the investment. ]
No, Bolton and hi acolytes have sh¡t for brains, and if there were to be war with Iran then it should be leveled by airpower.
And by Israel.
Neocons need to slink back under the rock they crawled out of.
[Have you ever spent any time over there fighting? Have any buddies cough up their last breath in your arms?
The sweat, the flies, the Hell it is is probably just something you read about.
Try living it before you puff up your chest.
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!]
Arm the resistance, let them fight for their own freedom.
No more wars over there unless we - or Israel - are attacked like in ‘67 or ‘73. Let the Saudis handle Yemen. Help the Iranians start a new revolution in their land.
Yes, the Bush era neocons need to be ignored and humiliated.
[No, Bolton and hi acolytes have sh¡t for brains, and if there were to be war with Iran then it should be leveled by airpower.
And by Israel.
Neocons need to slink back under the rock they crawled out of.]
I did 9 years 11B fighting in lots of places, some I can’t mention here.
Neocons really piss me off.
My brother - who I talked into joining - lost a leg in Baghdad.
So yeah, I’ve got skin in the game.
[No more wars over there unless we - or Israel - are attacked like in ‘67 or ‘73. ]
Wan an Zhang. Hitting the hay.
[I did 9 years 11B fighting in lots of places, some I can’t mention here.
Neocons really piss me off.
My brother - who I talked into joining - lost a leg in Baghdad.
So yeah, I’ve got skin in the game.]
Iran has used every weapon system it’s ever gotten its hands on. We would tempt fate by letting them develop nuclear weapons and mount them on ballistic missiles. These nutjobs are shooting ballistic missiles at Saudi cities because the Saudis are intervening against Yemeni rebels who are being supplied and trained by the Iranians, the way the Soviet supplied and trained the North Koreans and North Vietnamese. The Iranians lobbing ballistic missiles at the Saudis from Yemen is a lot like the Soviets lobbing ballistic missiles at American cities from North Korea or North Vietnam. Which the Soviet never did. The Iranians are nuts.
The Persians have a long history of empire. The Europeans who say Iran can be contained are full of crap. Non-Westerners don’t give a crap about Western ideas of sovereignty and the end of border changes. As far as they’re concerned, the West had its day in the sun, grabbed the Americas and Australia, and is trying to constrain non-Westerners from getting theirs for the rest of time. Euro dickheads are trying to hold us back because they figure if it goes sour, we’ll pay most of the price, as we probably will, if we have to take the Middle Eastern oilfields back from a nuclear-armed Iran doing a combo of (1) re-assembling the unitary Islamic empire that prevailed under Muhammad and (2) re-living the glory days of Persian empire, when Persia ruled everything from Afghanistan all the way to Greek Anatolia.
I am seeing 120,000 troops tossed around as what is needed. WTF?
John Bolton on the Warpath
That thread was about whether or not John Bolton was a warmonger because his voice was conceivably associated with a potential invasion of Venezuela. This time the question is whether John Bolton is right about allegedly advocating some sort of military action against Iran.
Today's thread bears the (partial) headline:
BOLTON IS RIGHT
These two threads arguing endlessly that foreign policy should turn on one's opinion of one man is anything but conservative. It is not conservative to conclude whether or not to wage war because one has a good or a bad opinion of an individual.
Should we invade Venezuela because John Bolton is smart? Should we not invade Iran because John Bolton is stupid?
This is not rational foreign policy turning on a careful and prudent analysis of America's national interests, it approaches idolatry, it is stupid and it is very dangerous.
Yet, I have the obligation to set forth by opinions and not just opine, so here is my reply on that thread of one week ago:
"Clearly, those who have replied in this thread have learned well the lessons of the Iraq war. That is all to the good. I published my own mea culpa some years ago outlining my disillusionment with the war and noting the futility of many of these incursions.
However, I also noted that one of the false lessons of Iraq was that all incursions are necessarily ill advised. That is to over learn the lessons of the Iraq war. If we abandon all use of military force, especially if we let the world know, as Obama did, that we have no intention of resorting to force, we have no leverage with bloodthirsty dictators who can smell weakness.
With respect to John Bolton, I think we ought to discount much of the treatment he received in this article considering the source. The New Yorker is hardly the place to find any support for rational foreign policy. Rather it is a place to find cheap and easy shots designed to insert a wedge into the Trump administration and between Trump and his base. If in the process The New Yorker can paint the Trump administration as incompetent, all the better for them.
Equally, I think we ought to understand that it is entirely within Trump's methods to employ a "good cop, bad cop" tactic in which Bolton plays the hardliner while Trump keeps his options open even as he enjoys leverage in negotiation because of Bolton's public hardline.
Finally, there is a political advantage in letting Bolton take the political hit for belligerent remarks while Trump gains the leverage."
-----------------------------------
I believe it is foolish to dismiss the lessons of the Iraq war (or to dismiss the lessons of the Vietnam War). Equally, I think it is foolish to dismiss the real-life experiences of datura and his brother. I also believe it is equally foolish to fail to understand that our tendency to fight the last war is not limited to strategy, tactics or technology but it involves taking the wrong lessons from the last war. For example, we took the wrong lessons from World War I and were forced into World War II utterly unprepared. The Democrats concluded from the Vietnam War that it was politically toxic to support war in general and, therefore, they mostly failed to support the first Gulf War. They took the wrong lesson out of the first Gulf War, that wars were as cheap and easy as video games and it was politically dangerous to look weak and not support the next video game, so Hillary and the rest of them voted for the Iraq war.
I think the discussion should begin with a look at the map and observe where is a Iran? What is the potential for a Muslim caliphate under Iran domination running from the border of China through Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria and onto the Mediterranean where Russian and Chinese warships are finding harbor? We should look at a geopolitical map and ask is there a potentially mortal combination of Russia, China and Iran and is Iran perhaps a keystone that would make the whole edifice crash if removed? What is the existential danger of Iran possessed of nuclear tipped ICBMs? How much damage will we sustain with our European allies if we take action against Iran? How viable our sanctions alone as a method to achieve rational national foreign policy goals concerning Iran? Can we obtain our goals and Iran by airpower alone? What are the opportunities for arming insurrectionist on the ground?
These questions are not easy, they are very difficult. But one thing is sure they do not turn one way or the other on the character or intelligence of John Bolton.
That's just what we need. Another State Department war because we're 0-5. Why ruin a perfect record.
I agree. Uncle Nuke is your friend.
I am the original poster. I see some here are getting upset without actually bothering to read the post.
I advocated waging a Syria style high tech and aerial war. No boots on the ground, we don’t want to occupy even a square inch of Iran.
I am not a neocon in the least bit. We need to be very careful about spending American lives (pilots will be lost.) I think this is a matter of short term pain versus long term disaster. Sanctions alone will probably mean Iran has nuclear power in 10 years. There could be massive nuclear destruction in Israel, the Middle East and quite possibly, the United States.
We *have* to stop the development of nuclear capabilities of rogue nations.
Turning a blind eye and leaning on a blind idealogical anti-war stance, will come back to bite us in a disastrous way.
There is a good chance we can force a change in regime. If not, we can wage a targetted high tech war suppressing the rebulding of anything militaristic by Iran.
John Bolton is a globalist who has no business in the Trump administration. If I wanted a Sunni Muslim running the country I would have voted for Jeb Bush.
I would hope that nothing happens or decisions made before the election. This could be their salvation a conflict that will kill Trumps chances in 2020
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.