Posted on 02/06/2006 6:03:02 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Agree.....acton will be coming fairly soon. I also agree with those that think air strikes can do the job. No need for boots on the ground for this one. My apologies to grunts everywhere.
I was wondering if that was part of the planning. Hitting them in the spring gives us a good 6 months to get things hammered out before having to worry about people freezing to death.
It would flatten the summer travel season but thats not a life or death issue like heat is.
LQ
oh dont show them this one, they'll start rioting again,,,</sacr>
"Diplomats have never stopped a war yet."
What the Carnegie peace guy is really saying is [in his worldview] it will be diplomats that stop Iran from making the bomb, or else we will just go ahead and let Iran make the bomb.
There is a huge amount of denial going on here. I still read news reports that define the issue as one of "dual use" technology, as though it remains it doubt whether Iran, if permitted the equipment to make the bomb, might actually do so.
There is a similar fantastic belief amoung peaceniks that if we merely get diplomats with sufficient skill, understanding and empathy, a peaceful solution can be worked out, and the only reason for failure would be that our diplomats are inferior to the task. This belief has the added bonus that when diplomacy fails, it will be "our fault".
Iran's statements over the past few weeks have made it crystal clear that, aside from the notion of national sovereignity, which Iran claims as a basis for everything it is doing, Iran cares nothing for international law, international opinion, or any norms of civilized behavior.
Good...I was hoping the Seahawks wouldn't take that Super Bowl jobbing without a fight.
Overwhelming use of force is key. I'd have every bomber in the arsenal up and dump as much ordance as was used in the first three weeks of the Iraq war. Screw the sites up so much that it would take years to repair - even if the underground portions are largely intact. Can't run equipment without power, support or even access.
"It's my understanding we might have to use nukes. Iran has buried most of their nuclear processing facilities deeper than our best conventional bunker-busters can penetrate."
The interesting thing is that if we attack Iran, the leadership will be in one such bunker. Seal em off with 1/2 mile of concrete on top of them and their nuke bunkers, cut off all communication to the outside world, install new government and control of armed services, a year later Iran's new army 'unearths' the mullahs and what is left of their bomb project.
Send the pentagon a copy of "Hunt for Red October" and plan a way to make it look like a "nuclear reactor accident".
Lieberman is going to be key here. No rational Jew is going to have any illusions about what an Iranian nuclear bomb will mean in practical terms.
Pray like it is in God's hands, prepare as if He doesn't exist.
"All that sand would turn to glass. You won't need concrete! :-)"
Yeah but wishful thinking is not the true reality on the ground. We will not use nukes unless we are attacked with a WMD from Iran first. The fallout would certainly effect a wide swath of the population and most likely other neighboring countries. We do not want a million dead from radiation.
I wonder how many cruise missiles it would take to get all their sites?
I tend to think that a massive cruise missile strike (literally hundreds incoming at once) would mean the entire thing would be over and done in hours, not days.
So you shoot a conventional bunker buster, followed by a baby nuke. Just let the second one fly down the hole the first one makes.
Speaking as a former grunt, let me say this: NEVER send a man where you can send a bullet.
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.