Skip to comments.Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran
Posted on 01/20/2005 1:01:34 PM PST by anotherview
click here to read article
Boeing's been pitching a tanker version of the 767 as a replacement for the aging fleet of KC-135s and KC-10s (converted DC-10s). Of course, our "friendly neighborhood watchdogs" in the Beltway don't exactly like that deal (officially because of the cost; more likely because having tankers allows the USAF to have global reach).
So, what happens if Iran's nuke facility goes "boom" and nobody takes credit?
"Gee, it musta' been Israel." "Oy, it had to be the Americans." "I think the Russians did it." "Pakistan must be responsible; they didn't want to have to watch two directions at once." "India could have..."
Not exactly my favorite way of turning a blue state red.
Samson pulled the palace down on his enemies, and died along with them. An endangered Israel may well use battlefield nukes so close to home that harm will be done to themselves.
Isn't Russia pledged to support Iran???? And Syria if we come to that?
Frankly, I am surprised that the Israelis have shown as much restraint as they have the past several years, especially during the first Gulf War when the scuds were fired upon them.
Oil was the only reason for all of the squealing done by the world when we walked into Iraq (note no squealing when we went into Afghanistan). If we do more than just bomb Iran...say walk in and set up one more democracy under our "help" the world will march. To much of the worlds oil under our control.
They themselves would never leave those countries, to much power would come with controlling that oil, and they will not trust us to leave since we know how they have been moving against us. They would expect us to stay to protect ourselves, they would in our shoes.
I have said before WWIII has started it is just not out in the open yet.
I have always maintained that going into Iraq was for strategic reasons. Pres Bush told us in his axis of evil speech pretty clearly what needs to be done.
The middle east has been simmering for years and it has to be taken care of. There are no easy ways to do it and no guaranteed outcomes, but the US and Israel are the only ones who will lead.
I pray for the people of Iran who have had to live under this tyranny and wish to be free.
It's ironic considering the fact that every non-islamic country that would object is also struggling with serious terrorism problems.
If/when this situation explodes, it could get very ugly for everyone. I'd hate to see what the economy would do if the oil stopped flowing for any length of time.
Any military action against us on the part of those who object might interfere with the flow of oil, so they might do nothing.
Israel bought about 3000 from us a few months ago.
It means that the Israelis will kill a billion muslims if the Hebrew state is going to die.
Iraq is the perfect position from which to drain the swamp. I don't see any way to win the war on terror without doing exactly that. We have to at least try to address the problem. To do less is to guarantee that we will continue to be a target.
One thing the controversy over Iraq has done is reveal very clearly who our real friends are, and who is more unreliable in a pinch. It's rough going it alone on anything. But I think the reality is that anti-Americanism has become so severe in the world that we might be alone in facing most future conflicts. I hope I'm wrong.
I don't know why I'm surprised by that - the lead up to WWII was much the same for Britain.
That's another thing I wondered about - if, heaven forbid, we ended up head to head with China for some reason, would we be standing against them without allies? Even if China attacked us?
One word : NAPALM.
"Is that concern or a hope?"
Reads like a post election suggestion to me.
"Mr. Sharon, can we store a half dozen or so MOAB's out back there? We have so many we can't count 'em all and nowhere to store 'em. Borrow a couple if you need."
I think 10 carrier groups will stop EVERYONE from shipping troops into the region. Overland assault would require several countries latting the armies cross them. Ain't gonna happen.
China, the EU and Russia would have a really hard time even coming after our guys with anything.
I stand corrected. 3000 seems like an inordinately high number. These weapons have a highly specific function.I guess it is good to be over prepared.
That assumes they won't hit us at home.