Not to THE DESTRUCTOR!
Posted on 02/08/2005 7:24:22 PM PST by freedom44
Agreed!
The government won't be hostile definitely if it won't become ALLY of the US! I believe the next Iranian democratic government is an ally of the west and especially USA.
Take my word for it! The US will need a stable, friendly Iran that can be helpful and trusted in the middle east!
Iran is the country the US needs to overcome its problems in the middle east once and forever!
Obviously everything points to the only feasible way, which is revolution to solve Iranian Mullah problem from every aspect even nuclear, and no referendum. Waiting only arms them so they can take a few underground as the head terrorists and that will give us future big headache. Who was it that said I am not worried about a country wanting nukes, I am worried about a terrorist wanting only one.
From the hot pan of mullahs to the boiling pot with MEK. Persians will not go for that.
Sounds like things are heating up.
Oh please...you've got to be kidding.
It don't mean shi'ite..
Wasn't that hole made by a device that was buried beforehand? Something to do with an experiment in building a sea-level replacement for the Panama Canal?
The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran: An Assessment
By Michael Eisenstadt
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue1/jv5n1a2.html
Beautiful photos. Thank you for posting them.
About the MEK - You can forget about it. We ain't supporting them, thanks in large part to Condi Rice. And after the Inaugural and the State of the Union speeches, can you really imagine Bush supporting a terrorist group? I know, I know, sometimes you have to work with unsavory characters to get the job done. But not the MEK.
A similar thing happened in the 1980's. We waged a proxy war in Afghanistan, in part, by funding and arming Osama bin Laden's forces. In retrospect, a poor, near-sighted decision. We could have supported someone else in-country, I'm sure. However, Osama helped us beat the Soviets.
Now, that was a quagmire!
Oh yes, I am absolutely convinced that we have conventional (referring to non-WMD here) military capabilites that no one knows about. Or can defend against. And we do have an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. But I am opposed to their use unless there is no other way and a deadline is fast approaching (say, Iran will become a nuclear power imminently, and regime change isn't coming through "natural" causes fast enough). Aside from a missle defense system, there is no defense against nuclear weapons. I'm concerned that if we start slinging nukes around, that it might encourage others to do so (say, India and Pakistan). On the other hand, it would send a strong signal to the bad guys, not the least of which would be Kim Jong-il of North Korea. In fact, he went into hiding once the invasion of Iraq began nearly two years ago. We terrified him. He thought he was next. Same for Libya.
Now, the junior senator from Massachusetts. Now, I think Kerry said a lot of ridiculous things during the campaign. I kind of ignored most of it, in a way, thinking "that's just what liberals say, no need to get all excited about it, the only thing that matters is who gets the most votes on November 2nd." But when he essentially blasted the US for having a nuclear arsenal in that debate, that made me angry, I couldn't believe he said that. He wanted to have all nuclear weapons development testing to cease. His argument was that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons development, if we don't want certain other countries to develop nuclear weapons. That argument is a perfect example of why the world is safer with him in the Senate.
The picture of the crater - thar looks awfully like Meteor Crater in Arizona. Not that a nuke couldn't cause the same damage, of course...
Priceless headline on the Drudge Report:
How about this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339948/posts
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the link.
Though, first of all, I note that the rumors are gathered from unnamed administration officials. It could just be wishful thinking.
I don't think I would have a problem with using some MEK members as spies, as we wouldn't be supporting the group itself - at least in a technical sense. The obvious advantage in using them is that they know Iran much better than American personnel do. However, if it was known that the Americans were basically recruiting terrorists (or at least members of a terrorist organization), it might present complications in the long term.
Now that I think about it more, I think I might have a problem with it. I mean, if Bush tried to recruit al-Qaida terrorists, the Democrats would start impeachment hearings. You wouldn't be supporting the MEK as an organization, but some of their members. After regime change, they might claim enhanced legitimization since we used their assets.
It's a dilemma, but I agree with Bush in his call for a moral-based foreign policy. Of course, you're not likely to do much good if you only work with angelic people. It depends where you draw the line, and at what point does the costs of doing business with certain people exceed the probable benefits?
lol
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.