Posted on 03/29/2007 9:29:22 AM PDT by UKrepublican
Good point. Leftism/Liberalism is truly a mental illness.
Three carriers? My, my.
Excellent question. We should be able to act simply because the Iranians have egregiously violated international law. Sure, the UN will whine, but they whined when we invaded a country that had a hijacking school complete with a Boeing airliner for use as a training aid.
As for options? Here's my plan:
1. Give the Iranians until a certain date (soon!) to release the troops.
2. If the date passes, destroy the entire Iranian Navy and all its shore facilities. Optionally, we could do it to the Revolutionary Guard instead, but their Navy, though not great, is far more dangerous to our naval personnel than the Guard. Probably the best way to go is Navy first, Guard second, then ask the Air Force and Army if they want any. It won't take long for two carrier groups to accomplish this, and part of the plan would be to move some Air Force and Marine assets into Iraq before pulling the trigger.
3. During step 2, destroy all Iranian nuke facilities.
4. Level the single petroleum refinery in Iran. See how the government does when their military and the populace have to do without fuel. Actually, this might fit in during step 1, because if they haven't already put a mess of air defense around it, they will.
5. Kill any tanker that tries to carry gas to Iran.
6. Enjoy footage of the hostages coming home, Ahmadinejad getting the Mussolini treatment or both.
Oh, one last thing: Call it Operation Salamis.
No, he's not being sarcastic, he's dead on. Going full on--especially nuclear--against Iran is like deciding to wipe out all the American liberals, and putting New York, Los Angeles, Provo and Crawford, TX on your target list.
Maybe not...isn't Nimitz replacing Eisenhower?
The Revolutionary Guards will probably keep trying to grab hostages every chance they get.
If only. The enemy then was never given the 'benefit of the doubt'. . .they were recognized for they were. . .and what they justly deserved.
(Whatever. . .but for sure. . .they know the DNC talking points. . .) Wish the media and surely every fricking Repub in Leadership. . .would spend more time pointing out how very 'Democratic' (as in Demrat. . .). . .they sound.
"Maybe not...isn't Nimitz replacing Eisenhower?"
Yes, but that does not mean Ike will leave once Nimitz gets there.
Linoln had been on station for almost 11 months when W flew onboard.
Blair has his chance to fix his legacy.
'Uhmm no not yet, but keep pushing the 'bomb me button' and its bound to happen at some point'
The only thing missing is "Allah willing" and "Allah Akbar" punctuating the sentences.
Gotta' love the misspellings as well.
Well they all most likely all had a hand in the thinking leading up to it anyway.
A side note to this story, we have MASSIVE elections in May, about a month away.
Blairs handling of this could save his parties ass in the election, or it could make it a hell of a lot worse.
The falklands did Thatcher a MASSIVE favour, and likewise, while we're not talking military confrontation, should it continue to esculate, and Blair gets tougher and tougher, it could do him some good.
RockinRight wrote:
Which is why I'm asking the question. It needs to be done.
Especially since Iran declared War on us in the 70's during the hostage crisis, and we have never responded.
"Oh, he!! yeah. After all it worked so well in Iraq."
Why it hasn't worked in Iraq is due to Iran and Syria. If we take out Iran, Syria will be sitting up and paying attention...
Why it hasn't worked in Iraq is because we have our collective testicles securely stashed away in a lock box in Queen Pelosi's congressional office closet and there is zero chance we will be allowed to retrieve them any time soon.
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.