To: Williams
If it was my choice, we would have hit Iran first. Iran was always the bigger threat, and has been playing the terrorist game since '79. But there was no pretext so we took out Iraq. Like all invasions, it has been a mixed bag. We have achieved all of our goals but one, the media and world opinion has turned against us.
It isn't hand wringing, it is looking at what is going on. We should take out the nuclear facilities of Iran, but to do so would with out a "clear" threat would make the US a pariah in the world. So the US has to play the game for now.
The wild card is Israel. When Sharon dies, I suspect they will strike in short order, probably with US support.
63 posted on
01/05/2006 11:26:03 AM PST by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: All
This guy is just begging to get nuked.
67 posted on
01/05/2006 11:27:29 AM PST by
The Toll
To: redgolum
There comes a time when reality trumps politics. In national security, that should be most of the time. It's just my opinion that striking the nuclear facilities isn't enough. The Iranian leadership might do what every other tin horn country does and duck for cover, but I think they are nuts enough to attack or at least to undertake large scale terrorist activities. Obviously their current leader is a messianic nut. I don't think we can accept a nuclear Iran or North Korea. Tough choices, but that's why they play "Hail to the Chief" when Bush comes in.
73 posted on
01/05/2006 11:51:52 AM PST by
Williams
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson