Posted on 09/11/2007 9:37:54 AM PDT by Fennie
An 80-page study written by two British security analysts and released on August 28 makes a chilling estimation of the overwhelming force that the US would use in the event of any attack on Iran. "The US has made military preparations to destroy Iran's WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George W. Bush giving the order," the paper declared...
Yo Hersh, Froggy got nukes, too. But why blow up a trading partner?
IMHO, you can also forget about a few days of "shock and awe" in Iran. The place is bigger than all of western Europe put together. Some of the key targets are 1500 miles apart, others are deep underground, others are decoys.
We could put them out of the awl bidness in 48 hours, but an air campaign? 60 days at least ... during which time the bull shiites and their terror cells would be blowing up every ice cream parlor in Toledo.
Nah, the key deal going down is the unspoken Iran/Turkey Alliance to handle the Kurds. One thing the Iranians have is Cash. Funny, but it's something the Turks lack. HMMMM?
I second the motion. Iran declared war on us almost 30 years ago and has never stopped. They slowed for a decade or so after Reagan demonstrated our air power on their navy but their stated aim is to build a nuclear weapon and use it on an allied state.
The comparison with Hitler is about right. Iran is no Nazi Germany in comparison to conventional arms or military strategists but Iran only needs one nuke to change our entire way of life.
I really liked the article until the end when typically retarded European/Socialist mindset comes in, acting like Bush would wage war on Iran because Asian rivals are negotiating for oil. Saudi Arabia sells oil on the global market and those “Asian” oil negotiators are on Saudi soil constantly.
Why sell now.....as the price of oil would fall dramatically, not to mention the region being stabilized which includes Iraq and it's oil. This action would be a "Double Penetration" Dog f$#@ing for the Libtards. Get to kill two birds with one stone.....well ten thousand precision strikes same difference.........:)
Great idea. Now to add that we must be about 10 years further along in energy independance for your plan to work. Should all the leaders of this great nation be working on such a plan of energy independance? YES! Are they? No, our leaders hold too much stock in Exxon Mobile to ever consider that!
IIRC we were never officially at war with NK. We and several other Allied nations fought Red China and NK in a "UN police action" in Korea which eventually wound down to a stalemate and a 54 years and counting ceasefire. The "police action" could start up again at any time if either side were to break the cease fire agreement.
Sounds good to me.
But, ask the Brits for a few helpful hints - but behind closed doors.
As (former, dammit!) colonists we do know a thing or two about keeping the bad guys under the thumb.
No offence intended, sir.
Ah, merçi, I didn’t know what characters to use for the accent.... never bothered to look it up before, but now you have inspired me.
enchanté
Nonsense.
(1)The world will need less oil.
(2)The oil fields will still be there (underground).
(3) Just like Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the worst radio-active affects are (a)immediate and short term in the vicinity of the blast during and immediately after the explosion, (b)long term in the water and plants produced with the water or from the radio active ground, (c)long term but less potent in the atmosphere in general and (d), in potency, does not extend to great depths underground.
So, after a very short while, properly attired technicians, with their own food, water and shelter, will be able to go in and restart the pumping of restored, or new wells, without the terrorist butchers or dictators interfering; and even paying the legitimate proceeds back to the desperate populations there that remain.
The whole “green” movement against fossil fuels is political-science, not true science and among the really ignorant not science at all but a religion.
WAIT! hold the presses! Jimmy Carter has a peace plan!
Yea, like a sane person would really want to see 1/3 of the world blow itself-up in a nuclear-armed pissing contest between two groups of the same religion? /sarc
Now, the real point is that the United States should not be so sure it has a real long-term stake in being best buds with either the Saudis or Iran, under their present rulers, because I do not believe it does.
Neither state is now our “best bud” (at all or in any true sense) and until both the Iranian Mullahs and the Saudi Royals are removed by real moderate forces, neither one will ever be a true friend or ally of ours - no matter how much we try to act like a friend of theirs.
“”The US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George W. Bush giving the order,””
Funny thing is we can. We know it, the Iranians know it, the Democrats know it.
My key point to you is that you seem to be of the green-religious frame of mind and need some lessons in science. My scientific points to you stand as plausible, in spite of the fact that they are neither desirable or practical, for moral reasons, not because they would fail to work.
In case you failed to understand the intended sarcasm in my original post, read my answer to ChinaThreat.
We should have hit them today!
Hi - I think you meant to direct this to another poster. I understand that the effects of radiation are short term. Radioisotopes are like light bulbs that quickly emit their energy and burn out. Rebuilding in any contaminated area to safe levels is a few scant years, although the scare-a-ticians will talk about it being decades. A lot of this thought comes from data collected in the 60’s that says a nuclear war is the end of the world. People and scientists should be looking at data collected in the late 80’s if they really want an understanding of the effects of nuclear warfare.
Les pays n'ont pas des amis, mais seulement des interêts.
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.