Israel may do "it" for us.....

[Papa Deuce]

Israel has asked for permission to use US controlled air space to bomb Iran.... or , not, if you believe Isreal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254299,00.html

But to me, it seems totally logical. Nobody has more to lose in the Middle East than Israel if Iran gets nukes, IMO.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

That should be Iraq's decision, not ours.

 

[Papa Deuce]

That should be Iraq's decision, not ours.

Probably.....

 

[salmoneous]

Not a chance of this happening...

1) The Iranian aren't dumb. Their nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country, in populated areas and hidden. You can't just take them out with a simple bombing run.

2) If we attack Iran (and if the Israelis do it, that will be perceived as our attacking Iran) even the folks in Iraq who currently support us will go to war against us. I don't want our troops anywhere near the Shia when this happens.

 

[dcentity2000]

Attacking Iran would be akin to pouring gas onto a raging fire.



Rich::

 

[Cool-Beans]

I wish somebody would put an end to it. The last thing I want is crazy arabs with nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, if nobody puts an end to it and Iran makes their bombs and uses them, the guys in charge who did nothing to stop will be thisclose to as responsible as the loopy Iranians.

 

[Fitswimmer]

If Israel does it, it will be no different to the Muslim world than if the USA did it. It will just make things worse.

 

[GeorgeG]

Perhaps we should just wait until Iran or any of the other countries toying with the nuke concept actually use them against us or our allies. Even then, the Dems would probably want more conclusive proof of their existance. Maybe they'll nuke Paris and the French will want to be our friend again...

 

[Pop Daddy]

I dont know the answer but that man in Iran is a nut

 

[Lanshark]

It is a very scary time in our history.

 

[salmoneous]

. Even then, the Dems would probably want more conclusive proof of their existance.

Buddy, you have some seriously negative ideas about your fellow Americans. You honestly believe what you wrote, or do you just like insulting people?

 

[reeeoga]

Israel has asked for permission to use US controlled air space to bomb Iran.... or , not, if you believe Isreal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254299,00.html

But to me, it seems totally logical. Nobody has more to lose in the Middle East than Israel if Iran gets nukes, IMO.

This is a D@m if you do D@m if you don't situation. The only peaceful way I see out is to encurage a revolution in Iran. I keep seeing reports that the Youths (under 30) in Iran want a more UAE type of lifestyle. Maybe we need to let the CIA work some Voodoo in there.

 

[LakeAriel]

Perhaps we should just wait until Iran or any of the other countries toying with the nuke concept actually use them against us or our allies. Even then, the Dems would probably want more conclusive proof of their existance. Maybe they'll nuke Paris and the French will want to be our friend again...

Doesn't George Bush only wish he had listened to the French! They were right, we were wrong. Accept it. We have lost thousands of our troops, life and limb, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians all for a lie!

Yes, and now they call them French Fries again instead of Freedom Fries. What a bunch of morons leading this country.

 

[HOGFAN]

to me it doesnt matter if the intelligence was 'skewed' or not.

Lets face a fact, even if Saddam didnt have 'the bomb' , he was determined to get it. And he would use it. On us, likely.

I believe that when all is said and done, history will determine that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

 

[HOGFAN]

to me it doesnt matter if the intelligence was 'skewed' or not.

Lets face a fact, even if Saddam didnt have 'the bomb' , he was determined to get it. And he would use it. On us, likely.

I believe that when all is said and done, history will determine that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

The nutjob in Iran is worse than Saddam. somebody has to take care of the situation. The U.S and Israel are the only ones capable of doing it.

 

[salmoneous]

tLets face a fact, even if Saddam didnt have 'the bomb' , he was determined to get it. And he would use it. On us, likely.

One - we were completely capable of keeping him from getting "the bomb" without going to war. Two - there is absolutely no reason to believe that Saddam would have used it against us. Even the CIA and other intelligence agencies that though he had some WMD felt he wouldn't use them against us except to stop an invasion.

Looking back in hindsight, going to war in Iraq was a horrible choice.

 

[User Name]

Lets face a fact, even if Saddam didnt have 'the bomb' , he was determined to get it. And he would use it.

Right on.

As a matter of fact, he was so determined to get it, that ISREAL had to do a bombing run in the 80's to destroy IRAQ'S nuclear program. Set them back a douple decades.

So, all you doom and gloom types... don't forget Isreal already successfully completed a similar mission. WE probably should do it in Iran, but the whiny left would be all over the administration about it. Isreal, at least, has the cajones to defend herself.

And, for those that think it's too dangerous for Isreal to do it, would you rather them try and stop it AFTER Iran has the bomb? You think it's dangerous now?!?

Looking back in hindsight, going to war in Iraq was a horrible choice.

Should we go into Darfur? In addition to genocide, Saddam Hussein controlled oil, the lifeblood of the 21st century. He also either directly or indirectly supported terrorism against the US and our allies. He also invaded another country. He also had WMD's and was trying to get them again. He also was in violation of numerous UN regulations (which negated the cease fire from Dessert Storm). I could go on, but I'm afraid it would fall on deaf ears.

 

[salmoneous]

Saddam Hussein controlled oil, the lifeblood of the 21st century. He also either directly or indirectly supported terrorism against the US and our allies. He also invaded another country. He also had WMD's and was trying to get them again. He also was in violation of numerous UN regulations (which negated the cease fire from Dessert Storm). I could go on, but I'm afraid it would fall on deaf ears.

Look, Saddam didn't have WMD when we went to war. We were able to keep him from getting them through means other than war. War wasn't the answer.

The fact that Saddam was bad does not mean that war was the right answer. As bad as Saddam was, war has made things worse.

 

[Papa Deuce]

This is a D@m if you do D@m if you don't situation. The only peaceful way I see out is to encurage a revolution in Iran. I keep seeing reports that the Youths (under 30) in Iran want a more UAE type of lifestyle. Maybe we need to let the CIA work some Voodoo in there.

That's a fact.... by and large.

 

[User Name]

Look, Saddam didn't have WMD when we went to war. We were able to keep him from getting them through means other than war. War wasn't the answer.

The fact that Saddam was bad does not mean that war was the right answer. As bad as Saddam was, war has made things worse.

You did not answer my question. Do you think we should send troops to Darfur?