<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

That's it 
I was agnostic until now - actually I preached caution. But now I see no reasonable alternative.

It is time to take down Iran.

Any military move must be so devastating in its impact that the Iranian industrial capacity is set back years, if not decades, across a variety of industries.

I would not advocate "surgical" strikes. If there is advantage in using more firepower rather than lesser, then we should use more. We will receive no credit for restraint.

There can be no doubt about the U.S.'s resolve to prevent nuclear technology from being transferred to rogue states and state sponsors of terror. It is the overriding strategic interest of the United States, and all other matters are subordinated to it. That includes Iraq.

Yes, the Iranians can cause a lot of trouble in Iraq.

We can cause even more for them.

It is one thing to develop a weapon for self-defense/deterrence. Openly engaging in nuclear proliferation is quite another.

If the Iranian people want to avoid economic devastation, let them pressure their rulers accordingly.

Comments:
The Iranian people don't get much of a say in it. See the last farce of an election.

I think we're going to have to overthrow the mullahs. There is just no way around it. If that means that we have to invade, because we haven't put the years of groundwork into establishing opposition forces, then that's what it takes. Hopefully, we'll be able to get a decent amount of support from the non-insane majority of the populace, especially by pointing out Iraq.

Interestingly, Stratfor is still convinced that this is all a dance designed to negotiate over power sharing in Iraq. They think that Iran knows that it can't have nukes and is just getting the best price for not having them. I think they're reading too much Cold War into it and not enough WWII.
 
I couldn't agree more. Let's do Iran. Then we nuke the moon.
 
Brilliant - nuke Iran, which doesn't have nukes, and ignore North Korea, which does. What message does that give to any country that doesn't want to get stomped on? Get nukes as quickly as you can. And since we will have lost whatever remaining credibility we have in world affairs, it'll be us against the planet. I bet that gives you a real hard on.
 
Lay off the moon people tfdad!

But seriously what do we have to do to convince these unserious people we're serious? Nuke Darfur? The mad mullahs better seriously listen up or we'll destroy the 4th largest oil exporting nation on Earth and drive the price of gasoline up to a pretty seriously mind boggling $30 a gallon if we have to. The thought of janjaweed militia armed with horseback nukes is seriously just too much to bear. I can hardly control my bladder. Seriously.
 
You beat that invasion drum pretty loudly here... How about putting your money and honor where your mouth or keyboard is:

http://www.usmilitary.com/scripts/forms/coreg.html
 
maybe you chicken hawks should do a cost benefit analysis before you just go thumping your chests. let's see...iraq, a pussy-cat of a non-threat...is costing your grandchildren $300 billion and we're not nearly done spending their money yet. how much would a real threat like iran cost? c'mon...stop drinking the kool-aid and think.
 
I couldn't agree more let's not only nuke those "rag heads" lets go ahead and nuke those rooskies just for fun! Then when we have made 5.5 billion enemies we can save money by doing away with all foreign aid. Just think what it will do for tourism! No American worth their patriotic salt will have the co jones to travel abroad! Forget about the trade deficit with all the embargos against us they want matter anymore. And gas prices will be the least of our worries since just getting a meal will preoccupy us. The decider in chief has done such a good job in Iraq I just can't wait to see what he does in Iran. Praise the lord and pass the radio active gear!
 
Well I hope you plan on doing a lot of walking because you will never be able to afford gas again. And if we can let pakistan and india and israel have nukes, why not Iran? Come on giveme a real excuse...not just "they can't be trusted" neither can the Bush administration but you fall for their lies.
 
What nonsense. You really think we can handle Afghanistan, Iraq AND a second rate but professional military like Iran, all at the same time, with a VOLUNTEER army?

I got news for you: Rumsfeld didn't plan well on Afghanistan, and things are unravelling over there. He didn't plan much at all on Iraq, and nothing he predicted has come true. Why would I, or anyone in the military, believe an Iran campaign would go any better? And what happens when the troops, used to guerilla fighting in Iraq, see WWII -style attrition combat by a well-supplied enemy?

A bad general doesn't plan to fail, he fails to plan. And given Rummy's track record, I wouldn't trust him to make my coffee. Maybe someone else can lead us into Iran, but not him or his team.
 
The problem we face in any military option is that we don't know where and what to bomb. Recall that after the Israeli bombing of its nuclear sites in the 80s, Iran has spread out and buried large parts of its military and nuclear infrastructure, we know not where.

If that were not enough, we learned in Iraq that all the smart bombs in the world are only so effective against masses of people willing to throw their bodies at us. And Iraq is considerably smaller than Iran.

We're overstretched in Iraq, and don't have the resources to attack Iran unless we reinstate the draft. What if, after bombing Iran, the regime fails? Who will secure THAT country?

So it's back to diplomacy, for better or for worse. Note that we currently have good relations with Pakistan, another nuclear proliferator, and of course India.

Far better to make the public pretense of dealing diplomatically with Iran while supporting dissidents and agitators behind the scenes.
 
And you guys will lead the way? I'm right behind you.
What sort of overwhelming force did you have in mind since you don't want the illusionary surgical strike that most of you folks fantisize about? 82 Airborne? They're busy. 1st Armored? Same deal. Carpet bombing by B52's? Yeah, that will play well with our allies.
Fools
 
"If that means that we have to invade'

Uh, with whom do you intend to invade? Where will the troops come from? Have you looked at the retention rates for lower grade officers? Are you volunteering to lead troops into Iran, where, during the Iraq-Iran war they sent waves of suicide shock troops against US supplied Iraqi weaponry? Including poison gas courtesy of Don Rumsfeld? Do any thoughts whatsoever pass thru the small dim place that serves as your brain?
 
But the Iraqi Shiites are aligned with Iran. Many of our troops are in areas with Iran-armed Shiite militias. And beyond the militias there are millions of young, angry Shiite men who would join in retailiation against our troops if we attack Iran. This has to be taken into consideration before any attack on Iran. I suspect this is WHY Iran is provoking us to do something.

Before the invasion Iraq was a non-religious state. Now we have created an Iran-aligned Shiite state with Shiite militias governing many areas. This necessarily precluded us from acting against Iran. Should have thought of that sooner?
 
Why? Is the moon sharing nuclear technology with Sudan?
 
I say we nuke the White House, then all the red states.

HooHa.
 
Cheeeeeeeetos Away!
 
Here, here. Now you can round up the rest of your conservative colleagues, march yourself down to your local army recruitment office, and sign up.

What's that? You don't want to fight? But this is a matter of life and death. You guys said so, yourself. Why, it seems like you're itching for a fight, so go ahead and fight.

Ohhh, I see. You want to sit comfortably from your home, prognosticating and deciding the fate of millions while having to endure zero suffering or sacrifice and all of the benefits.

You, sir, are a true chickenhawk. The living breathing embodiment of privilege without principles, logic without sincerity, rhetoric without wisdom.

You have no sense of what it means to fight and, therefore, your very claims of needing a war are base out of dangerous ignorance. In other words, you'd make an excellent Secretary of Defense.
 
The voice of the arrogance of power is heard again.

This is the battle between the good side of the US being so militarily powerful - since it can use that power for good to promote democracy - and the bad side, which is, 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'.

Sons of bitches like the author of this thread are why it's a danger.

"But seriously what do we have to do to convince these unserious people we're serious?"

Oh, I dunno, why don't we do something really radical like overthrow democracy and set the stage for tyranny there for decades. And for good measure, set up a brutal 'secret police force' for the dictator.

Oh, wait, we did that, 1953-1979.

OK, how about we stir up a war by putting a puppet in power next to them, and encouraging him to invade Iran, use WMD and we'll supply some WMD components to this guy, and we'll look the other way when WMD are used.

Maybe have a million casualties, in the longest war of the century.

Oh wait, we did that already, with the Iraq-Iran war.

And the question the right-wing war criminals ask is, should we nuke them.
 
North Korea is protected by China. That is why the Korean war was basically a draw, and why they spent 40 years WITHOUT nukes safe from US invasion.

Iran is not protected by China in the same sense North Korea is. In fact, we could probably strike a deal with China, letting them secure the oilfields they need.

Jason is advocating an "eliminate anything moving, or running on electricity" approach. This would not be hard for the US miltary to do. They could break out the cheap bombs as opposed to the high-precision weapons.

We are talking Daisycutters dropped in urban areas. We are talking ruthless, no humanitarianism whatsoever for the first 3 years.

Such a ruthless campaign would require an unambiguous vote from congress to authorize the largest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam.
 
If President Bush makes another of his illegal, unprovoked attacks on a Muslim country, it will create a backash that will last for generations:
1. $140/barrel oil
2. waves of terrorism against domestic targets
3. grinding down of our army
4. reinstatement of the draft
5. universal hatred of all things American by the rest of the world
6. uproar among the 60% of the American public who strongly disagree with President Bush's "misleadership"

Do you think you are ready for all that?
 
Kill everything, that's very Christian of you.

Its assholes like YOU that make the world hate US.
 
Before you guys start calling Jason a "Chickenhawk" maybe you should read around a bit. Jason fought as an infantry officer in Iraq.
 
Dear Lord, this thread is the funniest thing I read all day.

"Chickenhawk"?! *snort*
"March yourself down to the local army recruiter." ?! *guffaw*
The link to the recruitment page ?! Comedy gold.
"another of his illegal, unprovoked attacks on a Muslim country" ?! You just can't make this stuff up.

What do do about Iran is a subject worth serious discussion. Too bad the moonbats who would call an Iraq war vet a chickenhawk aren't up to the job.
 
If we have to remove the threat, and I think it's not to that level yet, I would suggest a punitive raid by ground forces to the sites where we physically destroy them and then leave Iran.

Basically, take OIF and remove Phase IV.

Perhaps we could leave stockpiles of small arms and IEDs for any anti-regime forces on our way in and out, but basically remove the nuke threat, kill any scientitsts and get out.

I don't advocate this except as the last resort.

BTW, it really hurts the critics when they cut/paste and don't even read who is the author of this blog is...LOL.
 
Ok, so he's not a chickenhawk; he's a fascist pig instead.

Same difference really...
 
The notion that being a grunt (sorry, ahem, "artillery officer" in the invasion of iraq (an illegal act orchestrated by an incompetent regime, or perhaps the other way 'round, eh bubba?)qualifies one to make assinine pronouncements on foreign policy is the same logic that qualifies lindsay lohan to pipe in about solving the medicare crisis - in short, there is none. Some high school dropout joins the army because it's a better gig than uncle al's body repair and chicken shop, and he then "retires," after getting his head dinged a couple times too many in a striker doing one too many donuts in the desert? While he may make a fine secretary of defense (as opposed to that real genuine c-hawk, donny rummy) you certainly inspire either confidence nor coherence in your comments. Maybe you should re-enlist, eh jo-jo? Oh yeah, and take that awol cokehead with you this time, so the moron can have a real tour of duty, instead of hanging on the farm with daddy's rich pals, ok?
 
The bigger point is one that robert lewis brought up earlier - we don't have an army right now with which to fight a new war. It's caught up in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by huge numbers of National Guard who aren't here at home, and military recruiting has been well short of its goals for many months. The only way to extend Bush's delusions of world domination would be a draft, and that will never fly, not for this president.
 
I don't think $140/oil can happen anytime soon. I don't think there's enough buyers willing to spend that much, and at $100/barrel, a lot of alternative technologies get too profitable to ignore.

As for bringing back the draft, it would not need to happen. There's another way: end all non-military scholarships, and raise taxes, and raise troop wages.
 
"The bigger point is one that robert lewis brought up earlier - we don't have an army right now with which to fight a new war. It's caught up in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by huge numbers of National Guard who aren't here at home, and military recruiting has been well short of its goals for many months."

This is one reason sensible people, i.e., the left, are not in favor of the huge military spending which puts too many resources too easily available:

Because that's why Thomas Jefferson even in *his* day with primitive military technology, he said a standing army was the biggest danger to our nation's democracy.

Because when the only thing in the way of foolish, evil military adventures is not any legitimate principles or good policies - things which are absent at times - but how many military resources the president can easily say "sure, go ahead" - then we can be glad a president like this one is unable to say that for war after war after war.

The left isn't anti-military when they say this - they want the country defended, and will support any legitimate defense for real threats.
Rather, they're against the *misuse* of the military.

That concept is sort of beyond many on the right; they can't grasp the idea of the US military being used for anything wrong. Everything for them is automatically the moral equivalent of stopping Hitler.

Since there's a military office espousing these views on the right, I'll quote the most highly decorated Marine in history at the time, General Smedley Butler, after he served around the world several decades back:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

We need to learn to be the things our PR claim we are - and we actually are sometimes - as the most powerful nation in the world (for now):

The Neocons are right that we should be concerned about our position in the world as its leader for freedom for people, and threats such as China, not threats to overthrow us but threats to freedom for other people.

But where they're wrong is how they HARM THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM by wrong approaches, only having military, aggressive plans for any problem. They're making enemies and giving our nation a bad name.

The US is losing decades of credibility in the world under them.
 
Jason is one of those retards who fell for BushCo's inflammatory rhetoric. Since he had no other opportunity, off he went to Iraq...

So, someone too dumb to finish high school is now a military and foreign policy expert?

Sue, let's go into Iran. While we are at it, I suggest wiping off the face of the earth Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia and Syria, on the way to Iran. Saudi Arabia, the country that gave us 17 of the 9/11 terrorists, should be left alone, however, lest we break up the Bush - Al Saud oily romance.
 
"So, someone too dumb to finish high school is now a military and foreign policy expert?"

C'mon, lay off the personal abuse.

It's not that it leaves you open to the legitimate mockery in examples such as the above where the label 'Chickenhawk' was misappled, but that it has nothing to do with the debate of the *issue*.

There's a legitimate issue about it being a bad idea to sign up for the military today, but that's for another thread.

Stick to the issue here. If his opinions are that wrong, you can beat them as issues, and if they're not, you should not miss the point by pretending the personal attacks answer them.

The discussion degrading to flames doesn't help your argument.
 
I can't believe you are seriously suggesting we put our already-overstretched military into a THREE FRONT WAR.

Are you nuts?
 
Don't waste my time unless you have some viable alternative suggestion.
 
And where did Iran get its "nuclear skills"? Why from our dear friend and ally in the GWOT, (or whatever stupid marketing name they have for it now), Pakistan. Why does no one suggest doing something about that anti-democratic regime?
 
Well, your unfounded conjecture aside, Gus, what, precisely should we do about them?

Or did you not think things through that far?

You know, given that

1.) Pakistan already has nukes. After all, it's a little harder to take nuclear weapons away from someone when they've already been fielded than to prevent the capital investment required for their development in the first place, and

2.) We needed, and continue to need, Pakistan's continued support and cooperation in the war against the Taliban, and in order to deny the Taliban a safe haven from which to conduct operations against American interests.

Pakistan was once a democratically elected government - and developed their nuke program under an elected parliament, WHILE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.

Sorry, but if Pakistan developing nukes was such a terrible thing, then Clinton made a colossal error in not moving to prevent it when he had the chance.

Just because Clinton was a fuck-up doesn't mean Bush is obligated to be just as useless.
 
Starting up a war where none exists is the greatest evil.
 
Jason - do you really enjoy being a moron?

Pakistan conducted its first uranium enrichment at Kahuta on 4 April 1978. The plant was made operational in 1979 and by 1981 was producing substantial quantities of uranium. During the Reagan I Administration.

The Wah Group had a weapon design - an implosion system using the powerful but sensitive HMX as the principal explosive - ready for testing in 1983. The first "cold test" of a weapon (i.e. a test of the implosion using inert natural uranium instead of highly enriched uranium) took place on 11 March 1983 under the leadership of Dr. Ishfaq Ahmed of the PAEC. This test was conducted in tunnels bored in the Kirana Hills near Sargodha, home of the Pakistan Air Force�s main air base and the Central Ammunition Depot (CAD).

By mid-1986 US intelligence had concluded that Pakistan had produced weapon grade uranium [Albright 1997; p. 273]. Cold implosion shots were conducted in the Chagai Hills area of Baluchistan in September 1986.

In 1987 Pakistan acquired a tritium purification and production facility from West Germany, as well as 0.8 grams of pure tritium gas illegally (the German parties who were convicted of illegally exporting tritium in 1990).

Between 1983 and 1990, the Wah Group developed an air deliverable bomb and conducted more than 24 cold tests of nuclear devices with the help of mobile diagnostic equipment. These tests were carried out in 24 tunnels measuring 100-150 feet (30-50 m) in length which were bored inside the Kirana Hills.

The New York Times Magazine reported in March 1988 that US officials had by then concluded that Pakistan had enough weapon-grade uranium for 4 to 6 nuclear weapons. Pakistan had begun construction of a second enrichment facility at Golra, 10 km west of Islamabad [Albright 1997; p. 273].
 
Attack Iran. OK, but before you do that, explain to me how we're going to secure our supply lines in Iraq.

Everything comes up from Kuwait in trucks, you see. Through Shiite territory. And there isn't a whole lot that would prevent a motivated Shiite insurgency from making that route all but impassable.

This is just one of hundreds things that would "blowback" from a strike on Iran.
 
"blowback"

Isn't that just another reason Jason hates Clinton?
 
Anonymous: 9:43 AM

You raise an absolutely valid comparison - and while I didn't go into the specific risk to MRS within Iraq, I did raise some logistical red flags here:

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/07/lets-attack-iran-says-left.html

Obviously, I counseled very strongly against attacking Iran - but in this case, I was sort of calling the left's bluff, because their calls to attack Iran at that time were not intellectually serious (nothing they say ever is, anymore, it seems), and I was daring them to defend their strategy on the merits. No takers so far.

Nevertheless, you're essentially assuming the syllogism: Iranians are Shia. Iran fights the U.S. Therefore all Shia fight the U.S.

The possibility of trouble in Southern Iraq is worth looking at. But just because most southern Iraqis are Shia doesn't mean they are going to want to ally themselves with Iran. Iraqi Shia fear and despise Iran, and are very suspicious of Iranian influence.

And the LAST thing Iraqis want to see is an Iran with nuclear weapons.

Further, what advantage would Iraqi Shia gain from attacking US forces and aligning themselves with Iran?

Those so inclined are probably already members of the Mahdi Army, anyway. And we know how well the two previous Mahdi offensives worked out for them. Or for what's left of them, anyway.

Our people can talk to their people and get a sense for what the feeling on the street is down in Najaf, Nasiriyah, and Basra... and maybe cut some deals with some of the local imams ahead of time to secure their support in case of war with Iran.

I think it's a valid concern - just not one I'd overstate.

I would have counseld caution on Iran, anyway - and I did do just that. But now that Iran is pledging to become a nuclear proliferator, and transfer technology and materiel to Sudan, then preventing that should become the overriding concern of US policy. Overriding even the US logistical effort in Iraq.
 
Jason-

You still haven't answered the question of where your mythical forces to effect a ground expedition against a country 4x larger than Iraq are coming from.

And while the Shia/Sunni split is real, you should understand the nature of the present "defensive jihad" that is in effect.

Because there is no caliphship in Islam now, most Islamic scholars agree that there can be no "offensive jihad" against the West.

However, as bin Laden has carefully laid out to anyone with a mind to listen, all 1.1 billion Muslims on the planet are required by their religion to oppose the occupation of Islamic lands by infidel forces (his terms - not mine).

Whatever differences may exist - beneath alliances of utility or allegiance of the moment - there is an underlying unity in Islam - a unity that calls on them to resist Western occupying forces in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Asian Republics, etc.

Do not count on the baloney that was fed you by the military to provide you with anything approaching understanding of the cultural matrix that so profoundly shapes our interaction with Islam.

Check out "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", by Michael Scheuer, a high ranking CIA Islamic specialist. A little education wouldn't hurt.
 
Jason, you can see the lefts answer right here. It's hopeless we can do nothing. We are doomed if we go in. We are weak.. whahhhhaaaa..

Some of this is just funny.

I love the courage of these anonymous commenter’s
 
Robert,

Where did I advocate a ground invasion?

You're not listening. In fact, I specifically said where the troops would come from - and that it would be a Navy and Air Force project.

You're only hearing what you want to hear.

Further, you have no idea where I got my information on Muslims from. (Hint: it wasn't the Army.)

Oh, and that "underlying unity" doesn't seem to count for much in Kuwait, does it?

Did Iran fight on Saddam's side?
No. They did nothing to stop us. They're glad to see Saddam gone. And Iraq will be glad to see Iran's nuclear program dismantled.
 
I had a pretty nice response typed out, but then I realized that you guys should all just kill yourselves.
 
nearly 50 years we believed that USA is from one of our allies.We see it is like a friend country. But we now understand something certain USA can destroy anything/anyone/anywhere just to make itself more rich or for keeping its richness. But american public is so strange..Have you even think about those god damn terrorist why hates USA? I just dont understand why and why someone named osama laden etc. does not like USA? He lives over thousands miles from america?? what the hell he's problem with you?? The answer is USA killed their sons and daugters and helped israelis to kill muslims..Thats why most of muslim people does not like USA.. But I think jewish lobbies forces US government to see muslim states as enemies of USA.Hundreds of thousand of people died in iraq kids babies womans men...And some people thinks about oil prices??? Life is precious because God made it.. I want best for muslims and jews and christians. what a wonderful sentence to remember "Created All Men Are Equal!"
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!