As they should be. 
AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links... by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review
Posted on 12/15/2005 2:48:58 AM PST by F14 Pilot
How pathetic. MTV rules the day.
"That's a real good question that has been carefully studied," Loftus answered. "There are over 360 separate targets inside Iran that have been identified. Most of them are non-vulnerable – many underneath residential neighborhoods and Islamic shrines. These are not places we can bomb.
WHY?
Tagline...
Not to be confused with "We are willing to die for our freedom"
If the choice is bombing Iranian religious shrines and civilian neighborhoods underneath which they are building nucelar weapons to destroy NYC, or letting them build nukes, the only option is #1.
It would be criminal to allow them to have nukes.
So, if a country, friendly to Israel, had in its inventory, a soon to be excessed aerial tanker, they might make it available to Israel.
What say, they render the aircraft completely airworthy and make it available for minimum consideration - $1.00.
Then that friendly nation could just play Sgt. Schultz - "I don't know nothing!"
Israel has complete responsibility for its actions. Our diplomats would state that Israel is a sovereign nation, and who are we to interfere with their internal security decisions.
At some point, the so-called 83% of the Iranian street will have to foment a genuine revolution if they don't want bombs raining down on them. They want their MTV but don't seem prepared to give their lives to have the freedoms they supposedly want.
Loftus is right, however, that conventional warfare would be a huge mistake unless there was overwhelming confidence that the entire program could be destroyed. Otherwise, without regime change, they'll end up getting set back a few years and launch as soon as humanly possible against Israel in retaliation.
Iran, on the other hand, IF they want to remain on the map, and save face, will have to drag out all their materiel and give Israel the option of destroying it in front of the world. This would prevent Israel from justifying the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and if they chose to bomb them conventionally, would open the door to retaliation by Iran.
The only way to avoid regime change for Iran is to avoid getting nuked. If they're patient, they could provide a "sitting duck" target for Israel in the short term, let them become the "aggressors" in the eyes of the world, and come back in three years fully nuclear and "justified" in whatever retaliation they prefer...
If the regime is placing targets in residential neighborhoods and mosques, it's the duty of the people to overthrow the government for putting them in the line of fire. At some point, if they accept the tyranny of their government, they must also accept the consequences doled out by the rest of the world because of that tyranny.
Yes I agree a better outcome than an all out war that is expensive in US lives and money. Not one of those people is worth 100 of our marines or infantry men. Take out their leaders destroy the infrastructure with surgical strikes and leave a young thriving Iran to become a democratic asset to the middle east. Not another post war dust bowl full of hatred and poverty ripe as a recruiting ground for terrorists.
I assume there are some tiers of target importance within the 360 number. Hit the first tier targets without warning and watch them all scurry around like ants wondering where we will strike next.
Very informative, Yes Once Syria is "liberated" and Iran too, we'll have on happy family of Democracies in the middle east!
I'm for it of course, but Whoa! the sheer immensity of it! Of course the other options are: wait for the nuke to drop from Islam......
We are between a rock and a hard place on Iran, and no amount of wishful or creative thinking will change that. The Iranian regime is hell-bent on securing nuclear weapons, and even if the EU or Mohammed El-Baradei or the Russians should manage to extract some conditional agreement from the mullahs, there is no reason to believe that the Iranian's won't cheat or renege. One variable that no one wants to think about is that the North Koreans might be willing to part with a couple of nukes from their meager arsenal (for the right, phenomenally high, price), thereby conferring an "instant" nuclear capability on Teheran. This is why passive assistance (e.g. intelligence, airspace allocation, aerial refuelling) to an Israeli effort to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities (and delivery means), fraught with peril though that may be, is the best of several bad options at this time.
Failing that, we know we can drop cement-filled bombs that cause almost no damage except where they land. A factory next to a shrine is at risk. We also have bombs that can delay exploding until they've penetrated a specfied distance. Installations under a civilian target would, therefore, also be at risk. If the mosque is empty at midnight, no innocents would be killed, the mosque would have a small hole in it, and the factory underneath would be obliterated.
Just let Israel's Navy swim around Africa, and hit the targets with missiles from the vessels and submarines at Persian Gulf.
Somehow I think that the Ruskies will "come to the rescue of" the mullahs by transporting the crude across the Caspian and exporting it as Russian oil. THe new Oil-For-Screw the US Program.
Or the even better, "We are willing to kill our tyrants for our freedom."
As they should be.
Israel has had aerial tankers since the 1960s. Today their mainstay tanker is Boeing 707 airframes. They also use C-130s.
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.