Posted on 06/18/2003 4:24:39 PM PDT by HAL9000
You cannot negotiate with Islamists. They are willing to sacrifice themselves and their children for the pleasure of watching you die. This makes it difficult to gain leverage with them.
Get this: TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential ruling clerics called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapons against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
Their having the bomb is tantamount to nuclear war, because the day they get it there will be a massive nuclear exchange known as the "Samson Option." If you are against nuclear war, then you must be against Iran's acquisition of the bomb. Is it beginning to dawn on you why they cannot be allowed to have the bomb?
Hey newbie, why don't you prove to us that there is no WMD, I suggest you go back to DU where there is plenty of cess for your pool
Last time I checked, the United States did in fact intervene to prevent Cuba from having nukes. And that would have been the Democrat John Kennedy who did that. And he did it for the same reasons we would intervene in Iran.
Actually, I am right, thank you. But if you read my post and understood threat assessment you would realize that China does not fit the interventioan equation I advocate, not in 2003. I do, however, believe that it fit China in 1951 when Truman allowed their 1st fundamental shift in capabilities as they became a nuclear power. I also believe it fit China in 1998 when Clinton not only allowed but assisted their 2nd fundamental shift in capabilities as they acquired delivery technology. China, however, does not currently present a changing situation in either capabilities or intentions. We currently have no active situation where we can prevent an adverse fundamental shift in either capabilities or intentions with regards to China. Additionally, even the most casual observer can see that Iran presents a greater intentions risk than does China. This is not to say China is a great friend, but Iranian leadership advocates and pursues active aggressive policies towards the U.S. and our allies.
History lesson #3 - Spring of 1996 - China threatens Taiwan with live missile tests - U.S. reacts with 2 CVBG - missile tests end - elections in Taiwan proceed without further direct interference. The moral of the story - The United States is prepared to react to aggressive action and shifting threat scenarios as regards China - and they (China) did back down - might I add that I was proud to be there as it happened.
Yes I mean there, in theater, as part of the reaction sortie. So now I guess that makes me a blood thirsty militant - I still regret that in all my years in the military I never once met one of those - it is a truth that the most brilliant military minds are also those who hate war the most. What made MacArthur brilliant was not his love of the fight, but his desire to end it.
This assumes facts not in evidence. Next...
I strongly disagree. Certain countries have a pattern and a long history of oppressing their people and inciting violence. America is not one of these countries. However, Iran, Iraq and North Korea's regimes (to name a few) are.
If I'm the President of "x" country and I'm throwing my own people into woodchippers or cutting of their tongues because they didn't have their ID card on them, when stopped by my police force, I'm a crazed maniac. As such, my country (including me) must be dealt with differently than countries which believe in individual freedom, liberty and peace.
Like I said, Go back to DU
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.