Posted on 01/21/2006 8:05:03 AM PST by beaversmom
They'd just immediately side with the mullahs anyway, just as they have with the terrorists, so screw em.
No we didn't... we needed to be on both sides of them.
It's like that cellphone commercial where the old CEO says "I'm giving it to the man" and the young guy says "But you're the man."
This type of reasoning is fallacious since anyone can then immediately say 'moslem arrogance' and the argument will collapse.
...Defeating Jimmy Carter is not quite the same as defeating the US.....
Not so. The weak Carter allowed the US to actually be defeated. The hostages were taken. America did nothing. Carter failed. America failed.
To think otherwise is delusional. The pacifist Democrats are setting things up for it to happen again.
Rather than attempting to take out 13 hidden and well fortified nuclear facilities, why not just bomb their oil infrastructure so they cannot sell ANY oil on the market? Then keep bombing it if they try to repair it. I realize this would raise global oil prices to $100 or more, but the way this slow motion disaster is unfolding, that's going to happen anyway. The advantage to doing this is it cripples their economy. They don't have much else to support them, other than the oil. They'll have no more cash to work on nuclear bombs. And it just might topple the regime from within if the Iranian economy collapses. Am I nuts, or could this work? I welcome freeper comments.
We win, they lose. Period.
Yep. Then what, brainiac? That's what I can't figure out.
Remember the basic rules of existence, not the least of which is "you can never do just one thing."
The law of unintended consequences will apply well beyond anything you or I can imagine. "Winning" this way may not provide an "optimal outcome" so far as continued human existence is concerned, let alone the continued existence of democracy or any form of human freedom.
What will be the reaction to this sort of "victory?" Have you ever heard of the term "Pyrrhic victory?"
Let me know when you get out of high school and start dealing in reality.
>the Middle East conflict has become “the locus of the final war” between Muslims and the West
Why the West, if it's going to take place in the Middle East? This is a ME issue, not a European one.
You clearly aren't able to engage in a coherent discussion of valid factual arguments even from someone who assumed he was on the same side, and therefore aren't worth any more time.
Fortunately it is abundantly obvious that you aren't in any kind of position to know anything, influence events, or be listened to by anyone who is, for which we can all be thankful.
Is the President of Iran really delusional enough to sacrifice the Iranian capital of Tehran and the holy city of Qom? A few strikes from Israeli Jericho II missiles armed with thermonuclear warheads of around 400-500 kT yield should ensure both cities are reduced to mostly radioactive ashes and molten glass.
It's a pleasure to share common ground with you.
The subject isn't much comfort, though, is it?
I think this guy will use a nuke; and soon.
He thinks he's taking us down with him... at this nexus death cults becomes really dangerous.
It's clear that he would if he could. That's why I believe we are going to take him out sooner than later.
By compassion, this idiot makes Saddam look like a juvenile delinquent.
Yes, he does.
And you know I am not one to panic, but I am really VERY worried about the coming months.
The Middle East is a beehive of Savages, they treat their donkey's better than they do their women.
http://redburtt.blogspot.com/
You could copy right that one.
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.