Posted on 11/25/2011 2:14:44 PM PST by nuconvert
Why, despite the growing danger posed by Iran's nuclear program, have the United States and other nations restricted themselves to negotiations, economic sanctions and electronic intrusions? None of those tactics has been particularly effective or produced enduring changes.
The main argument against military action is that it would set Iran's nuclear program back only a few years, and that Tehran would retaliate directly and via surrogates, drawing the U.S. into another unwinnable war. Many fear also that Iranians will rally behind their regime with nationalist fervor, dashing hope of regime change for decades and turning Iran's largely pro-Western population against the West once again, to the mullahs' great benefit.
These concerns are based on worst-case scenarios that assume Iran has the resources to rebuild quickly, to retaliate without being thwarted, and to get the average Iranian to rally behind a regime hated for its violent oppression of dissent, stifling social codes, economic failures and isolationist policies. Yet Iran's government is already weakened by very public infighting between its much disliked ruling factions.
We should not conclude that a nuclear Iran is inevitable. Instead we should think about another way of confronting the threat. The real goal of air strikes should be not only to target Iran's nuclear facilities but to cripple the ayatollahs' ability to protect themselves from popular overthrow.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearworld.com ...
I’m more interested in toppling the Ubama Regime.
Sounds good but NOT going to happen with this marxist moose limb loving punk in office.
something is up ...
Yes, I’ve read about that. I’d like to think something is up with Syria, but I’m not holding my breath that this isn’t all some scare tactic to get Assad to back down.
btw- it doesn’t seem to be working.
The main (liberal) argument against military action is that it would set Iran's nuclear program back only a few years, and that Tehran would retaliate directly and via surrogates, drawing the U.S. into another unwinnable war. Many (liberals) fear also that Iranians will rally behind their regime with nationalist fervor, dashing hope of regime change for decades and turning Iran's largely pro-Western population against the West once again, to the mullahs' great benefit.Paragraph fixed.
We should not conclude that a nuclear Iran is inevitableWhy not?
The mass uprisings in 2009 - known as the Green Revolution - have dissipated because few protesters saw any hope of mustering the force necessary to defeat the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij paramilitary forces who brutally enforce Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's authorityNo . . . they dispersed because the USA didn't support them materially and fell silent while the paramilitaries cracked down on those who were protesting. Besides, the vast majority of the Iranian population supports the Mullahs.
“Besides, the vast majority of the Iranian population supports the Mullahs.”
Really? Who told you that? The vast majority of the population is under the age of 30 and does NOT support the mullahs.
“We should not conclude that a nuclear Iran is inevitable
Why not?”
Because to assume that it’s inevitable means that you stop trying to prevent it and all you do is think about how to live with it. And that’s Wrong.
I wish inserting the word ‘liberal’ made your paragraph accurate, unfortunately, it doesn’t, as there are plenty of conservatives who seem convinced of those arguments as well (though, I don’t necessarily agree with them)
All you have to do is get a list of the 100 top officals in Iran and park a cruise missle in their bedroom at 3 am on the same night. It would save tens of thousands of life’s over time.
There is more up with this. Review the map and legend below it from this thread.
Only two of our 11 CVN carriers are deployed. The rest are in home port.
Three of our 9 LDH assault ships are not in home port. Two of those are on port call, Bali and Pearl Harbor so only one is on deployment. The three ships on deployment are all in the middle east.
That means a single tactical nuke attack at Hampton Roads would virtually wipe out our Atlantic fleet. A coordinated attack on San Diego and we would be left with only four CVN’s and only the three LHD’s that are out of port.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2811726/posts
Sounds good to me
I like your plan
I was just talking to someone about this yesterday. We were both surprised that so few were out to sea.
The author ignores or doesn’t know about what is really containing Iran
Stuxnet, assassinated nuclear scientists, missile viruses, blown up missiles and missile generals have slowed and perhaps severely wounded the program
No one has claimed credit. They don’t know who to attack
AIUT, that does apply in the city, whereas the countryside is another story.
The vast majority of the population is under the age of 30 and does NOT support the mullahs
No, that's only one side of that coin. The other side is you actually stopping it before it gets any further, so as to change the course.
Because to assume that it’s inevitable means that you stop trying to prevent it and all you do is think about how to live with it. And that’s Wrong
They're not conservatives. There are quite a few libertarians on this board, with extremely varied views on foreign policy from individual to individual; however, those that sympathize with Ron Paul are isolationists and regrettably naïve on foreign policy. The rest are CINOs who for some reason wish to appear conservative but are truly liberal.
I wish inserting the word ‘liberal’ made your paragraph accurate, unfortunately, it doesn’t, as there are plenty of conservatives who seem convinced of those arguments as well (though, I don’t necessarily agree with them)
Iran’s oil facilities should be bombed. That would end the excuses against doing anything real about Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.
How Israel reacts now will determine their survival. If the IAF doesn't attack they'll get nuked within 12-18 months. It's fortunate that Zero has behaved as badly as he has toward BiBi, because Israel knows it can't rely upon the USA to enforce real punitive embargo's, or an effective attack upon Iran's extensive nuclear facilities.
These concerns are based on worst-case scenarios that assume Iran has the resources to rebuild quickly, to retaliate without being thwarted, and to get the average Iranian to rally behind a regime hated for its violent oppression of dissent, stifling social codes, economic failures and isolationist policies. Yet Iran's government is already weakened by very public infighting between its much disliked ruling factions.
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.