Posted on 09/18/2007 9:23:19 AM PDT by SJackson
It wasn't a mistake. It was and is difficult, yes, but definitely not a mistake. From a strategic perspective it was absolutely crucial that we create a viable bridgehead next to Iran.
With several hundred thousand boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've got the means to mount a credible campaign against Iran.
Without Iraq, we'd have no strategic advantage in the region.
As long as the POS stays on MSNBC nobody will hear him anyway.
It is not appeasement and are you calling the Generals an appeaser(s).
It worked with the USSR and it is currently working with China, India, and Pakistan.
You can’t start wars with everyone you don’t like but you sure can make life hell for them in the mean time with strong sanctions from the international community. That is how we handled, Iraq for 14 years.
You are correct.... Assuming we need boots on the ground in Iran. I would argue the opposite. Our boots on the ground will be a liability because of theater ballistic missiles in Iran’s arsenal and their WMD capability.
Two carrier groups and air bases in theater would be more than enough to take out the estimated 2000 targets needed to cripple Iran.
I think you are missing my entire point. WE DON’T NEED BOOTS ON THE GROUND. Screw this nation building crap. We should simply destroy our enemies. Not build them up. That is one of the reason’s i voted for W. He promised, “no nation building”.
We have a conventional capability that would allow us to cripple the Iranians without putting our ground forces in harm’s way. Occupying Iran is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We are stretched in Iraq. Iran would require at least a million troops to occupy.
To paraphrase the recent remarks of the always trenchant William F. Buckley Jr.: Between 1939 and 1945 only a handful of Germans apparently believed that Hitler's "Final Solution" was a terrific idea.
But how many millions perished as a result of that handful of fanatics?
John Abizaid is a dummy. Period. Iran seeks to usher in the Imam by destroying Israel with a nuclear weapon. These people don’t fear death-they think they go to heaven and get 72 virgins if they kill infidels. John Abizaid is truly a clueless dolt. A nuclear armed Iran is NOT an option.
Even not assuming that. You need logistics, fixed air bases, and so on. The country of Iraq is far more capable an aircraft carrier than any 100 Nimitz-class carriers battle groups....
As for defeating Iran through airpower alone... yeah, right.
Pat, go back to lip synching the ‘Horst Wessel Lied’ and leave us real conservatives to worry about Iraq.
What you say has merit; but the analogy would be better if any one of the three were currently on a jihad vs the US.
That was successful... /sarc
Iran was considered the leading supporter of international terrorism prior to George Bush. It began under Jimmy Carter.
Iran is the key to getting OUT of the region, not to prolonging our stay. Topple that government, and we can justify a departure.
It would be significant to stay and plant seeds of westernization and modernism.
I don't think this is a case of "we don't like Iran"
This is a case of a real nuclear threat from a person who is eager to use it.
I say we get this over with soon. Diplomacy, sanctions, UN jabber is only giving them time to complete the preparations to use nukes.
Well, except for the fact that Abizaid said that an Iran with nuclear capabilities is okey-fine with him and shouldn't be that big of a deal (ok, that is a slightly hyperbolic interpretation of his exact statement, but not all that far off). So, yes, other than the fact that his judgment seems suspect in other instances on the exact same subject, yes, we should trust him.
It has nothing to do with Israel, it has too do with OUR national security.
Oh don't worry. As Iran moves to replace the dollar with the Euro when it comes to oil trading, we'll find out the Iranians will have a nuclear warhead the following week if we don't 'act'...course the same thing happened with Iraq in 2002.
"It is increasingly apparent," said Petraeus, "that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."
Pat makes it sound like Petraeus is just creating this scenario out of whole cloth. Oh, wait. It's actually true? Oh, that's like Iran declaring war on us. But that's irrelevant to Pat.
Pat says, And it is a fair prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran.
Little bit of an overstatement, here, Pat. But don't let that slow you down.
Pat says, To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.
Yeah, before this we had Most Favored Nation status. The Arab nations were lining up to be our Little Brothers. What a pitiful piece of reasoning, almost start to finish.
In remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank and reported on Sep, 17, 2007 he stated ""We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it." He further stated ""I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear."
Here is what General Abizaid said about Iran. Seems he does not in the least support your dogma of Do Nothingism.
If you ever really look at this man and his sister...they look like rats...they’ve got those little ratty looking eyes.
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.