Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Bolton Says to Bomb Iran (Video)
Primetime Politics ^ | May 7, 2008 | John Bolton

Posted on 05/07/2008 1:16:02 PM PDT by Nony

John Bolton makes the case for bombing insurgent camps in Iran. This guy needs to be in the next administration in a position of power.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bolton; bomb; iran

1 posted on 05/07/2008 1:16:02 PM PDT by Nony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nony

Hell with that. He needs to be President after our second Civil War.


2 posted on 05/07/2008 1:17:45 PM PDT by bushfamfan (The sunrise has turned into a sunset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nony

>> This guy needs to be in the next administration in a position of power.

Yeah. Preferably, as President.

(I can dream, can’t I?)


3 posted on 05/07/2008 1:20:51 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (La Raza hates white folks. And John McCain loves La Raza!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nony

Actually, I disagree.

Bolton tells the truth in a direct way, which was why he was so good at the UN, a place of stagnation, blather, darkness and corruption. He was like a ray of sunshine.

However, in military affairs and their repercussions, you need the opinion and critique of a lot of experts to tell you what to do and how best to do it. A good leader might choose what to do, but he will not be in charge of how to do it, or visa versa.

In this case, the problem with the camps is obvious. But are they the real problem, or just a symptom of a bigger problem?

Then the “killer question”: “And then what happens?”

This is the question that has stopped more military operations than anything else. And it never ends. If you find an answer for it, right then the question is asked again. Because it has no end.

You have to assume that any attack is just the first move in a chess game, so you don’t move until you have considered the consequences.

So we attack the camps. What is the Iranian response? Then what will the US response be to that? Etc.


4 posted on 05/07/2008 1:30:46 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nony

Let’s expand Operation Chaos to unseat McCain and give Bolton the nomination.


5 posted on 05/07/2008 1:33:25 PM PDT by pke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
You have to assume that any attack is just the first move in a chess game, so you don't move until you have considered the consequences. So we attack the camps. What is the Iranian response? Then what will the US response be to that? Etc.

You don't think Bolton and the paid experts at the DOD haven't played out all the possible moves and have scenarios to all possible consequences already mapped out?

6 posted on 05/07/2008 1:34:17 PM PDT by mnehrling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

if we do it right, there would be no iranian response.


7 posted on 05/07/2008 1:38:06 PM PDT by sappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"So we attack the camps. What is the Iranian response? Then what will the US response be to that? Etc."

Which is exactly why Hitler came to power. He knew the US and our allies would always take the "what if" way out. Which is why Iran will be the next Germany of old, because our leaders are too worried what may happen if they do what is needed.

There is a word for that, but being this is a public board I will keep it to myself.

8 posted on 05/07/2008 1:38:38 PM PDT by Post-Neolithic (Money only makes Communists rich Communists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
re: Then the “killer question”: “And then what happens?”

Good point! But I have come to think that they would do nothing but crawl back into their holes and wait for us to grow complacent again. They have no stomach for fighting, especially when they know they're outclassed. Sadly, for them it's a religious war and our failure to make them pay a dear price for trying to force their god down out throats is seen by them as a weakness. They don't think like we do and any attempt to reason with them is just taken as evidence that their god is better than our god. Until we explain it to them in terms they understand, by kicking their ass good and proper, and telling them the ass-kicking isn't from America but from the God we worship, they will go on just like they are.

I am honestly convinced that there only response to the carpet bombing with whoop-ass would be words, lots and lots of words. And if they did appear to be ready to do something more demonstrative then we would just give ‘em another dose the same medicine.

I could be wrong and I am SO thankful it's not my decision to make!

9 posted on 05/07/2008 1:40:45 PM PDT by jwparkerjr (Sigh . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bushfamfan

2nd the motion.


10 posted on 05/07/2008 1:49:03 PM PDT by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

No I don’t. That is for several reasons.

To start with, Iran is a conflicted mess as far as its power structure. Any attack will help the more extreme factions and hurt the less extreme, but still dangerous ones.

We do not know if or how Iran would respond to such an attack. It might make a multiple strategic missile launch, which we would probably be able to shoot down because of the positioned PAC-3 missiles. One or more of those missiles might contain a nuclear weapon, made with weapons grade uranium from North Korea.

Actually, we might not mind if they made a full scale attack when we were prepared. But that might not be right now, but in a few months.

Iran could order its al-Quds forces around the world to make terrorist attacks against unprepared US soft targets, resulting in much loss of American life, but without any claim of credit, pretending to be innocent.

Iran could decide to not respond militarily, but just with the threat of military action against commercial oil shipping. The oil companies are skittish, and would refuse to transport oil through the gulf, unless the US gave them very expensive naval escort, heavily insured their vessels, and paid their crews many times their normal salaries—which we have done before. It is very expensive.

Iran could lobby with both Russia and China to condemn the US for its “unprovoked” attack. Both those nations, and many others, would gladly jump on that bandwagon.

The Democrats would also make hay with such an attack, trying to gain political benefit against the Republicans.

Etc., etc. It just gets worse and worse. That is why military actions are so darned hard.


11 posted on 05/07/2008 1:50:42 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

An attempt on our Navy, probably. We take out their navy,air force and nuclear facilities as well as their only refinery...we offer via leaflets to re-build their refinery.


12 posted on 05/07/2008 1:51:06 PM PDT by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

So let me get this clear, you don’t believe the military and DOD haven’t accounted for all this, they just popped this idea out of thin air with no consideration. Glad to know you are so much more informed than the US Military, DOD, Bolton, and people who have been doing this all their lives.


13 posted on 05/07/2008 1:54:14 PM PDT by mnehrling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Post-Neolithic

Importantly, it was US and European political, not military leaders, that futzed around.

If you tell a military man to plan for a mission, he will. Unless it is utterly loopy, he will also execute it when ordered. However, only a fool does this without fully understanding the consequences.

Yes, it can be done anyway. But it may throw gasoline on the fire.

I remember a good story about this from an American colonel who served in Vietnam, leading a Hmong army behind enemy lines.

He knew a mission was problematic, because it was scheduled during the Tet holiday, the most important holiday of the year, when everyone in the region went home to their families. However, he knew that it was an important mission, so he decreed to the Hmong it should be done. Then he went inside his hut to plan the mission with his NCO.

Soon they heard a cacophony out in the perimeter. Grabbing their rifles, they saw all the Hmong banging on pots, and otherwise making as much noise as possible.

What the hell are you doing?, he yelled.

The Hmong leader said, “It will take too long for us to go find the enemy, so we make noise and bring them here! Then we fight and we kill them or they kill us, but everybody get to go home for Tet!”

The mission was aborted.

Good prior planning is not the same as waffling.


14 posted on 05/07/2008 2:05:20 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson