Posted on 03/28/2007 11:12:00 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
How should the United States respond to the proliferation of deadly roadside explosives in Iraq manufactured and developed in Iran?
And how to react to the capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard of 15 British Marines and sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?
What should we do about Iran’s continued refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program even in the face of twice-imposed United Nations sanctions?
We should pass — and the president should sign — the Dodd-Lantos bill mandating economic sanctions on any foreign company that aids Iran’s energy industry. Domestic companies are already prohibited from such investments.
This Democratic bill, cosponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), is a bold piece of legislation that strikes at the core of Iranian vulnerability.
And, in a singular act of courage and dedication to principle, Republican presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has added his name to the legislation as a cosponsor.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
[I wish that something like "sanctions" would accomplish something against a foe such as Iran. I suspect that they will not]
Sanctions against Iran are a joke. Unless the world unites to stop sending them ANYTHING AND STOP BUYING OIL FROM THEM, sanctions will be laughable.
No Food. No resources. No money. No purchases. -- It will never happen. Russia and France could not affort it.
My doorbell seems to be broken. But hey! Two thumbs up on J. S. Mill!
I would like to see Pres. Bush send a letter to the lunatic leader over there announcing that we are now considering military action.
"...Unfortunately we are running low on precision guided munitions. All we have left in inventory is about 2 million 1,000 to 2,000 lb dumb bombs left and a fleet of B1 and B2 Bombers to deliver them. We also have several old nuclear peices of ordinance that we need to get rid of. Please excuse the mess in advance. Condolences and apologies to your citizens."
Let's say you're right. Do you believe Iran is a threat or don't you?
If you do, should the President ignore a threat because it (supposedly) "could sink" his political party in some upcoming elections?
That would imply validity to their jihad in the minds of many by recognizing its religious tenets enough to attack them, not to mention alienating all Muslims and neutral Arabs nations who'd otherwise have little problem with this. All it would take is a fwuata from a few radical clerics to negate the fear of been wraped in bacon anyway.
Keep it secular even though they're trying like mad to convince Muslims it's religious. The terrorist may actually want to die, but they don't want to be unceremoniously expelled out the back of a US C-130 like pigeon poop to go splat on hot cement. That's got'a scare the crap out of the "best" of them
“Let's say you're right. Do you believe Iran is a threat or don't you?”
I don’t believe Iran will nuke anyone. I think it’ll threaten to use them in partnership with their proxy wars across the Middle East, blackmailing neutral nations into aligning against Western and Jewish interests, eventually crippling Israel to fall conventionally and/or from within. A Democrat dominated US for the next 16 years would only speed that up.
You know you two signed up on the same day?
The solution is to start by seizing their oil platforms and redirecting or at least shutting off the flow of oil. Then if they shoot missiles at the platforms it will be them causing the destruction.
The loss of oil revenue will hurt Iran a lot more than the loss of Iranian oil will hurt the rest of the world. Without oil revenue the Iranian government will collapse. Sure it will take a while, but they will no longer be a threat.
Would the oil field seizure be universally condemned sure, but it would have an effect.
That's the best damn statement I've heard yet!
I’m not sure I agree with your skepticism, but along those line… Capturing oil platforms is theft, condemned by virtually all in every nation and most here, including myself. Our political opposition would use it as proof that we’re at war for oil. Iranians would unify from the domestic attack and blame their economic hardship on it rather than on their failed government policies. Other exporting nations might refuse to sell to us concerned that they’re next.
I think we have hundreds of foreign terrorist in custody in Iraq. I think the press from airdropping the ones that are not talking (and this would prompt them to talk) would be a MASSIVE deterrent to others entering Iraq.
“The Iraqis have chosen Islam over Freedom - let them have it.”
Many but not all Iraqis have chosen life in submission over death of themselves and their families in heroism when unprotected from Saddamists, criminals and Islamists. Their security forces alone have died 15 to 1 relative to our forces, not to mention civilians. Many more haven’t submitted, or at least haven’t fully, and are depending on us to help them continue the fight.
Fair enough, you make some sense.
p.s. Signup dates of some people who signed up before 2000 may be incorrect, this happened when they revamped to the "new" Free Republic in 2001 or whenever it was. I remember for a long time my signup date was listed as 1/1/2000 or something, then they "corrected" it, but I'm not sure they did so correctly.
Yes, of course.
If you do, should the President ignore a threat because it (supposedly) "could sink" his political party in some upcoming elections?
I never said he would ignore it. I said that he wouldn't have popular support for any military action. And popular support is essential, though many Freepers can't seem to accept that.
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas -- like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It's the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don't want to play that role, Iraq's civil war will end with A or B.
“How should the United States respond to the proliferation of deadly roadside explosives in Iraq manufactured and developed in Iran?”
Bring them back to Iran and plant them outside of Iranian military bases.
“And how to react to the capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard of 15 British Marines and sailors in Iraqi territorial waters?”
Not a US problem. You are big boys, you figure it out. Just let us know what you are destroying so we can assist.
“What should we do about Iran’s continued refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program even in the face of twice-imposed United Nations sanctions?”
Ask the Russians to give them fuel and remove the spent rods when completed. If they cannot do this, no trade with either country. Just to make Iran believe we are serious, destroy their only refinery. Let’s bankrupt their ambitions.
“We should pass — and the president should sign — the Dodd-Lantos bill mandating economic sanctions on any foreign company that aids Iran’s energy industry. Domestic companies are already prohibited from such investments.”
Basically place economic sanctions on China, Europe and India. Not a biggy, we will open ANWR and provide them with the oil.
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.