Posted on 01/23/2007 8:38:55 PM PST by Soothesayer
Nukes are as messy as it gets. Sure I agree the use of atomic weapons did save millions of Americans and Japanese ending WWII but today a first strike is not a good strategy in my opinion.
For America, we would end up international pariahs but more disconcerting is the justification for nuclear retaliation against us.
While an Islamo Nazis slipping a nuke into one of our ports worries me, a lot, I'm willing to take the risk we can prevent it as opposed to any first strike options that would ensure we would suffer retaliation.
Repulsing a conventional attack by Iran into Iraq I believe would result in a campaign that would be over so fast the anti war left could hardly mount a coherent protest. In fact I believe an Iranian aggression of significant conventional forces into Iraq would galvanize American support for our operations in that part of the world.
Then again, maybe we won't need to attack Iran if a FR post I saw a few weeks ago was correct.
It stated that someone received inside information that the current grand mullah, Kamenei was dying of cancer and was not expected to last throught the spring. Also it said that Aminanutjob had gotten a year knocked off his term of office. Perhaps internal forces will take care of the Iran problem. Does anyone have any updates on the above info?
very "Wise" thinking
By "wise," he means "useful idiots."
Just outside of Jefferson City here.
No, Ahmadinijad is hoping for Barak Hussein Obama to be president in 2008.
Don't forget that Syria would also send in forces to assist the sunnis.
Really, what is the difference? A Demonrat is a Demonrat and they are our enemies' best friends.
It is the fact that Obama is a radical Islamist.
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.