Posted on 09/25/2004 5:50:59 PM PDT by LSUfan
If we were going to invade Iran, or at least surgically remove their nuclear capability, where would we attack from?
Think about it.
As for North Korea, what prevents us from attacking them is South Korea.
Think someone will tell the Brits?
Last I heard from Brit friends this was Bush's unnecessary, crazy (your choice) war.
Not only that, NK is not ABOUT to go nuclear. It's been assumed since 1998 that they have had between 1 and 3 bombs.
That's the real lesson here. NK is untouchable, but at least isolated.
If the Ayatollahs get nukes they will also be untouchable, but they will also continue their support for Jihadist terrrorism around the world at the same time. A dangerous combo.
Troll, troll, troll your post
gently down the thread
Your account ID's brand-new
What was that you said?
Libbie like 2fast4u wanted us to attack Iran with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, Saddam in charge of Iraq and the ISI in charge of Pakistan. But it's a moot point anyway. The liberals support a nuclear armed NK and Iran since they always cheer for the bad guys.
Can't blame 3 yrs of Bush for what has been going on in Iran, N.Korea etc.
Iraq was a threat...don't ever doubt that... read about the UN scams.. turning the other cheek!! if you think Iran is dangerous..imagine what would happen if Saddam had nukes? and remember the assasination attempt on Bush 41
Actually Iraq would make a very logical base for ballistic missile interceptors to cover Europe and the Mediterranean. Since if they are based in northern Iraq they would be able to intercept during the boost phase which is a lot easier.
How did you propose the coalition of the willing, led by President Bush, stop Iran and North Korea from going nuclear as they did Iraq and Libya ?
"We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"
Not sure what you mean ? Are you suggesting if we didnt go after Saddam that Iran and NK would play nice ?
...Or we should have gone after Iran and NK and left Saddam alone to go nuclear ?
"New Iran missiles can reach London"
Brag about it Nov. 3rd Iran.
I'll bet my wife that the only way Iran EVER goes nuclear is with a number of Israeli detonations over Teheran.
The longer I watch things, the smarter President Bush and his cabinet become.
They're way ahead of all of us, and Israel is also.
"Once Iran goes nuclear, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place."
Not yet. U.S. troops on both boundries of Iran.
"It seems harder and harder to justify Iraq when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute.
...Kim Jong Il and the mullahs can see that with 150,000 troops in Iraq we are prevented from dealing with either of them. ...
We have to ask ourselves was deposing Saddam worth letting Iran and NK go nuclear?"
Where do you think our bases will be if we needed them for confronting Iran if they tried anything funny? Iraq. Not stupid at all.
Check out a map. We have Iran surrounded since we are in Afghanistan (Iran's East) and Iraq (Iran's West). If we blockaded with our navy the Caspian sea above and the sea below, Iran would be isolated.
Iran isn't nuclear yet. With NK, we've got 6 way talks with all their surrounding countries.
Shhh ! You are not supposed to help him with the answer ... He seems to think President Bush as been bogged down in Iraq ...
We now occupy an unsinkable aircraft carrier the size of Texas in the middle of the Middle East, and the rats think GW is dumb!
Regards,
GtG
"when NK and Iran are about to go nuclear and minute."
NK is all bluster. Iran best do some heavy duty reconsideration before going nuke weapons.
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.