Posted on 10/28/2007 5:53:15 AM PDT by Flavius
The jockeying by Republican presidential candidates to demonstrate toughness on Iran was taken to a new level on Thursday when former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts announced that he would advocate a naval blockade or “bombardment of some kind” if Iran does not yield to diplomatic pressure to give up its nuclear program.
That sounds like the kind of air strike that Israel conducted against a suspected Syrian nuclear site last month. The trouble, many foreign policy experts say, is that Iran is not Syria. So do not expect Tehran’s ruling mullahs to quietly sit back after being bombed, as Syria’s leaders did.
Iran, most experts say, would react.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So NY Times, the alternative is? Just let them get nukes?
One must rember that Israel has a right to defend itself from the enemy that has determined to destroy them at ALL COSTS. This is something fat cat baby boomers just can not understand and it has cost us all.
Pull your head out sweetheart. The Mullah’s are all ready at war with the US. Have been since 1979. Bombing them would not only stop their nuke program, it would show them that the US is serious about it’s WOT. Iran is the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are directing attacks on US troops in Iraq. Past time for the USA to take the gloves off. Iran all ready has.
the issue is what happens after day after the planes fly
its appears all the Iran assets are built into underground and hidden
Iran idea maybe to outlast the raids and not expect ground conquest
so what happens the day after
The Left is truly evil. A seat on the ninth rung is being kept warm for them.
With all do respect both you and Mr. Newt, you may be in for a surprise.
They are converting their cars to run on Propane so this refinery bombing may have less of an effect than most think it would.
The Iranians invented chess, I think they may be a move ahead of us again.
Conversely, if need be do we target their natural gas plants and distribution network?
Trita Parsi is a regimist reformer. (at best)
No one interested in regime change in Iran should be listening to his bs.
Yep. Just like Libya reacted after Reagan bombed them.
Oh, wait, they didn’t react. Never mind.
I found how the World had been misled by prostitute Writers,
to ascribe the greatest Exploits in War to Cowards,
the wisest Counsel to Fools,
Sincerity to Flatterers,
Roman Virtue to Betrayers of their Country,
Piety to Atheists,
Chastity to Sodomites,
Truth to Informers.
(III:8;5)
Jonathan Swift
More on Trita Parsi >>
The Mullahs Voice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792547/posts
Ayatollahs’ Lobby In Washington
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872389/posts
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are...If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast...I think I understand what military fame is; to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers."
I would like to see someone exempt the USA from the equation for a moment and answer three questions:
1. Who is immediately threatened by Iran?
2. What will they do?
3. Why haven’t they done it already?
so what happens the day after?
The next day more planes fly.
The Syria raid clearly demonstrated that the Russian air defense system could be blinded. This is the same system Iran has in place.
The day after Syria got nailed NOTHING happened because any response would have triggered more of the same. Putin flew to Iran and made much noise trying to placate a panicky Iran.
They have a problem.They know it and we know it.
NY Times: Yes.
Next question?
- John
In a word, no. The strikes must be preceded or accompanied by a decapitating strike against the Iranian leadership. Cut off the head and the snake will die.
Unfortunately, we probably lack the political will to do it.
The day after, we bomb the salvage operation(s).
Building underground sounds swell but at some point they have to get the stuff out somehow. If a nuclear program is "built into underground" and we bomb the entrance then yes perhaps the material will survive the actual bombing but it will be under a pile of rubble. Let it stay there for all I care.
And if they send an operation to dig it out (which presumably they would, if they care about it), that would be pretty obvious, and we could bomb again, like I said. Not sure why people assume all bombing has to be done at one single time and no bombing is allowed after that. This isn't a board game where we take turns.
........Simply "Duck & Cover"....or climb under your desk and cover your little head...all will be well....and the sun shall shine tomorrow.....
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.