Posted on 10/30/2010 3:46:28 AM PDT by Strategy
Stratfor's George Friedman is a realist on what it would really mean:
Destroying Iran's nuclear capability does not involve a one-day raid, nor is Iran without the ability to retaliate. Its nuclear facilities are in a number of places and Iran has had years to harden those facilities. Destroying the facilities might take an extended air campaign and might even require the use of special operations units to verify battle damage and complete the mission. In addition, military action against Iran's naval forces would be needed to protect the oil routes through the Persian Gulf from small boat swarms and mines, anti-ship missile launchers would have to be attacked and Iranian air force and air defenses taken out.
This would not solve the problem of the rest of Iran's conventional forces, which would represent a threat to the region, so these forces would have to be attacked and reduced as well. An attack on Iran would not be an invasion, nor would it be a short war. Like Yugoslavia in 1999, it would be an extended air war lasting an unknown number of months.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
You’re right, Sullivan! Let’s just wait until they get nukes. Idiot.
Dittos.
all that worry when a few assignations would take care of it all
do you really expect much from a homo?
Right on the money. Most wars do not really have to happen. A few specific removals and gov'ts, juntas, regimes, dictatorships are swayed to another, more 'productive, course.
The doctor shows you the test results and says the cancer is in your brain and major organs. You’ll live comfortably until the end, when the cancer will kill you in an accelerating painful fashion. Once that starts to happen your body will be transformed into one large tumor and you (civilization as we know it) will die.
You can wait for the inevitable or you can aggressively purse the cancer while your body is still relatively healthy. No matter what, there will be tremendous pain. The sooner you start treatment, the better the long term prognosis.
Right now we are in denial.
No matter what actions are taken, this cancerous state will affect the entire world.
I’m of the opinion that the harder we hit the cancer now, the less collateral damage we’ll face. Since 80% of the world’s oil goes past the Straits of Hormuz this battle will effect every American. Not to mention marginal countries where a brief interruption of energy can be measured hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Which lead doctor do we want? President Obambi?
You cant settle this with just airstrikes. You will need boots on the ground. Or a CIA that can plant the seeds for a revolution inside Iran by more moderate types.Iranians like the USA, but they will defend their homeland. If we could give them aid and promise to support any revolt, that would do more than anything IMHO.
Obama is such a weakling the Iranians nutjobs are just going to keep this crap up. They see no reason to think Obama is going to do anything about it.
all that worry when a few assignations would take care of it all
You are the only one I’ve heard saying the “Make Love not War” theory would work with these Iranians.
Who is this derfwad again? He thinks that in a time of war the Iranian swiftboats are just going to be cruising around in the Straits?
If the US want to clear a path without diplomatic niceties, the Iranians better have some invisible cruisers.
I’ll tell you what it would mean... to me... it would be the first time in a long time that old LLS would actually have something to be HAPPY about!
LLS
LLS
“You can wait for the inevitable or you can aggressively purse the cancer while your body is still relatively healthy. No matter what, there will be tremendous pain. The sooner you start treatment, the better the long term prognosis.”
What a great metaphor. Let’s not delude ourselves: this would be a lot bigger, nastier and uncertain than Iraq by a country (US) that hasn’t convincingly demonstrated an ability to win against a real committed adversary (not a Granada, not a Iraq) since, I’d say, WWII.
What a great metaphor. But let’s not delude ourselves: this would be a lot bigger, nastier and uncertain than Iraq by a country (US) that hasn’t convincingly demonstrated an ability to unite and win (really win) against a real, committed adversary (as opposed to a Granada, or an Iraq) since, I’d say, WWII.
Dang I had a long multi paragraph response to you which resonated with what you said, and it got blotted out with the click of a mouse.
Bottom line, you got that right no matter what the fr hapries have to say.
They want to ban me? fine. I’tll be more work to get multiple screennmeanes at strategy.com etc but it might be worth it.
Agreed . . . clueless globalist idiots.
Good thoughts....better thought might be:
You can wait for the inevitable or IF caught early enough, you can aggressively purse the cancer while your body is still relatively healthy. No matter what, there will be tremendous pain. The sooner you start treatment, the better the long term prognosis. For instance, in this case, 'early enough' would have been Jimmuh Carter!
or, obliterate Qum and other crnters where the mullahs gather.
obliterate the problem, kill the mullahs
NO cheers, unfortunately. May God grant him repentance.
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.