Posted on 09/21/2006 1:40:22 PM PDT by kenavi
I would like to poll Freepers their opinion to this question.
We have our hands full in Iraq, keeping warring factions apart.
Our biggest fear is that if we leave too soon, Iran takes over.
What if we made our next priority getting rid of Ach-the-Mad's regime?
How do you think this would change the dynamics for us to need to keep troops on the ground in the Middle East, as well as other consequences?
in simple terms you are asking if we should cut and run.
If we can drop our reliance on his, and other turd world dictator's, oil then he will go away on his own.
I doubt that putting boots on the ground in Iran is a very top plan for the USA. Knocking out nuclear sites much like Israel did to Iraq in the 1980s is probably what the USA will do.
No, just kill Imamadjihadi, bomb the nuke and military sites (including workers and infra-structure like local power plants to run the centrifuges), and bomb/mine the major roads to/from Iraq.
Whatever comes out of the rubble can't be worse.
I WOULD arm the kurds.
I don't know that we are needed yet. Could happen and we'll cross that bridge then I figure.
We made a commitment to the people of Iran.
I think the Iranians would be able to handle it themselves.
Iran should solve its own problems. We could go in and at a cost of lives take him out but I doubt that we would be seen as saviors and we'd have an even bigger mess than in Iraq.
That all depends on whether we need to deal with the half-life of radiation.
Take out the all the Mullahs and The Dictator along with his henchmen with a few dozen Tomahawks......Let the citizens rise up and elect a government themselves. Seems simplistic, I know....but just MHO.
Iran is not a dictatorship - it is an undemocratic oligarchy with a semblance of democratic process.
Apples and oranges.
If AchHitlerbad was accidentally killed in the bombing, that would be gravy.
I think Iran is different than Iraq, that if the Mullets were ever deposed, the nation wouldn't have to be rebuilt. Something like this might destabilize them - they are loathed by their own people.
I think when the Iraq government is able to take over without us, we should leave the Middle East. I have my doubts whether the Sunnis and Shiites can coexist under any type of government, given their thousands of years of history. It is not our job to spread "democracy" throughout the world.
In other words I hope that soon it will be time to stick to our own knitting, although we should continue to stand with Israel.
No, we don't. I've posted this short article before, written by a former German intel guy. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html
"The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China."
It is why we went into Iraq from the longer term view.
We may pull most of our forces out of Iraq, but we will never leave the Middle East, until it becomes stable.
The idea that our presence alone causes the instability is a false premise. It is the excuse that many tend to use, but it is only a excuse, and not the cause.
Our existance is the cause.
We need to take out the Mullahs and Ahmanutjob and bomb their nuke facilities into dust...after that the Iranian people can clean up the mess and get about the business of running their own country.
And another thing...we're going to have to take care of Iran before we're ever going to be able to get out of Iraq. Iran is behind 90% of the bad stuff happening there and that won't end until we crush the Iranian government.
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.