Does Gates pick mean accepting a nuclear Iran?

[Patrick Henry]

Does Gates pick mean accepting a nuclear Iran?
Posted: November 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

President Bush's decision to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert M. Gates signals to experienced Iran observers that the Bush White House is about to shift direction once again in Iranian foreign policy, moving back to the type of "constructive engagement" strategy that typified the failed Clinton administration policy toward Iran as originated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The nomination also suggests stronger Council on Foreign Relations influence on White House thinking than previously recognized.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52871

[MrSanity]

With troops occupied in Iraq, we can do very little on a forceful level in Iran. I think the "accepting" of Iranian nukes is inevitable until they use them for malicious purposes.

[Antigone]

I think the "accepting" of Iranian nukes is inevitable until they use them for malicious purposes. - MrSanity

By then it's too late. Unless you like glow-in-the-dark underwear.

[MrSanity]

By then it's too late. Unless you like glow-in-the-dark underwear.Unfortunately so, but it is the reality of a pre-9/11 mindset that many have turned to.

[dajoga]

By then it's too late. Unless you like glow-in-the-dark underwear.

Only for those in the impact area, but an attack by Iran on US should bring an all-out attack by our forces totally destroying that country. The same for that shrimp with the spike hair-do in N. Korea.

[MrSanity]

Only for those in the impact area, but an attack by Iran on US should bring an all-out attack by our forces totally destroying that country. The same for that shrimp with the spike hair-do in N. Korea.Iran is far more likely to sell nukes to Hezbollah to attack Israel than the United States, in my humble opinion. We haven't had much military conflict with Iran since the Iran-Iraq War in the early eighties. And Kim Jong Il... he's pursuing nukes out of paranoia. He's had them for years, and hasn't involved his military in foreign wars.

Getting involved with too many enemies at once could hurt us in no time. It will form grounds for reimplementing the draft, which violates the very freedom our troops are fighting for.

[dajoga]

Iran is far more likely to sell nukes to Hezbollah to attack Israel than the United States, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps, but still we need the same response--destroy Iran. The ragheads only understand brute force--now it seems that while Rumsfeld's leaner, meaner, military did overwhelm Saddumb's army, maybe we should have put another 100K troops in to deal with the insurgency--there has to be a way of winning by defeating the enemy, not just "winning" by getting out.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Does Gates pick mean accepting a nuclear Iran?
Posted: November 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

President Bush's decision to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert M. Gates signals to experienced Iran observers that the Bush White House is about to shift direction once again in Iranian foreign policy, moving back to the type of "constructive engagement" strategy that typified the failed Clinton administration policy toward Iran as originated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The nomination also suggests stronger Council on Foreign Relations influence on White House thinking than previously recognized.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52871
WND's CFR nonsense is one of the reasons that I no longer pay any attention to anything from WND.

[MrSanity]

Perhaps, but still we need the same response--destroy Iran. The ragheads only understand brute force--now it seems that while Rumsfeld's leaner, meaner, military did overwhelm Saddumb's army, maybe we should have put another 100K troops in to deal with the insurgency--there has to be a way of winning by defeating the enemy, not just "winning" by getting out.Good luck with all that under the new congress, LOL.

It's going to take a long time for the sheeple to figure out that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

[Lazarus]

I dont know anything about Gates so I cant contribute anything to that other than he appears to be a Bush family insider...

As for the Nuke situation, Iran and North Korea are two different situations entirely... North Korea is already successfully blockaded, more or less, and as such, as long as we can keep cooperation among all the players in that area, we should be able to keep Krazy Kim nuke-free...

Iran is an entirely different situation... They are a wide-open market and I honestly cant see how we can possibly keep them from getting a nuke if they want one... They are a huge trade partner with Russia and Russia has no intentions of putting the economic squeeze on them - They have nothing to lose if Iran gets a nuke - and Russia couldnt care less if Israel was vaporized...

The EU is an utter joke - They would still be debating in the UN as to how to approach the situation even if Iran was raining nukes on France...

No I cant see how we can realistically keep Iran from getting nukes short of making surgical strikes against their nuclear facilities... So they will get a nuke... And when they do, all we can feasably do is spell out to them in no uncertain terms that the use of said weapon will result in fire and brimstone raining down on them from a unilateral USA...

And I only hope we have a Reagan in the Whitehouse on that day and not a Clinton...

[DesertFox]

I honestly cant see how we can possibly keep them from getting a nuke if they want oneI do. We nuke them before they can nuke us.

[Patrick Henry]

Iran is far more likely to sell nukes to Hezbollah to attack Israel than the United States, in my humble opinion. We haven't had much military conflict with Iran since the Iran-Iraq War in the early eighties. And Kim Jong Il... he's pursuing nukes out of paranoia. He's had them for years, and hasn't involved his military in foreign wars.

Getting involved with too many enemies at once could hurt us in no time. It will form grounds for reimplementing the draft, which violates the very freedom our troops are fighting for.

And that makes it okay? I think not. You underestimate the U.S. military. We don't need a massive army to occupy Iran. No more so than Israel did when they knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor. The same applies here. Missile and air strikes against Iran facilities would be effective.

If you think that you can reason with these people, you're as crazy as the nut over there in charge! Sitting around with our thumbs in our *sses waiting for a mushroom cloud to appear is NOT reasonable or effective policy.

Quite frankly, I believe that the Israelis will crush the Iranian's nuclear ambitions, in spite of our hand-wringing and sniveling.

[Kathy30]

Gates!

The demunists are welcoming a nuclear Iran. We need to pull out of Iraq NOW. Get every one of our kids home NOW. Iraq's resulting civil war will be short lived anyway.

Israel knows that the demunists in control plan to throw Israel under the muslim bus. Without our support, there is no one to tell Israel to show restraint and have them listen and do it. Israel is going to strike at Iran and the entire ME will be embroiled in nuclear war. It will probably go world wide in short order. We need our young men and women here.

[Patrick Henry]

The best move we could make is to park the 7th Fleet off the coast of Israel.