| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Are we going to war? |
| 2006-09-26 |
| Posted by:Blackvenom-2001 |
| #9 BLOGWATCH.com > Gary? Hart + HUFFINGTONPOST.com > In short, writer believes Dubya may attack Iran circa October 1st. Stages/Phases for [alleged] attack/invasion already begun Keep in mind that IRAN + NORTH KOREA have been acting like two peas in a pod, i.e. all but officially demanding or daring that Dubya = USA attack them. Dubya & Co, have to prepared to fight a simul two- or two-plus front(s) regional war, regardless of whether it wants to or not. MOSNEWS [2004?] + DEBKA.com . Iran may already have 6-12 nuke devices, likely in the form of [modified]KH-55/555 TCM's smuggled in from Ukraine.Some bloggers on the Net are speculating that China + Norkies may attempt to modify nuclear-capable SAMS into SSM/TCM types. It has already been well reported by various sources that RUSSIA is attempting to sell to IRAN integrated air defense missle systems to protect Iran's nuclear facilities from America-Israel. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-26 23:22 |
| #8 The Nation? You gotta fumigate RB after this one. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-26 22:05 |
| #7 The second that Ahmadinejad threatened genocide against Americans, he delivered a pretext for regime change. However, his threat to torch the entire Persian Gulf oil patch, is realistic unless unconventional war is planned. The US has approximately 10,000 nukes on shelves and in potential theaters. I am less reluctant than most to use them, proportionate to the task. But, the mentality that they should gather dust, other than in response to a first strike, is fuel for foreign aggression. Neutralizing Iran would: pre-empt a future ICBM threat to the US Homeland; prevent implementation of Ahmadinejad's genocide policies; empower Iran's minorities; eliminate Ayatollah pilferage from Iran's economy; dry up funding to Hizbollah; end aid to al-Sadr, while eliminating a political obstacle to annihilation of the Mahdi Army; secure naval traffic through the Straits of Hormuz; etc. I speculate that the planning is completed. And the fact that there is no evidence of preparation for massing US (or some kind of coalition) troops, suggests that regime change will not involve infantry. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-26 17:03 |
| #6 retired Air Force Col Technically, commissioned officers aren't retired, but rather placed on reduced pay and are subject to recall by the Secretary of the service. So recall the asshat and put him in uniform before a courts martial to reveal the names of persons compromising opsec. Unless of course, as usual, its just made up and given the 'unnamed source' title. |
| Posted by: Angimble Whonter6983 2006-09-26 16:01 |
| #5 First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress. Track down those who are compromising opsec and hang 'em high. The Fourth Estate continues to shine in its role as intel arm for the enemy. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-09-26 13:40 |
| #4 This piece is lot of dithering and hyperbole from the fever swamps of the DNC by bitter Clintonite has-beens. The press in its neverending quest to smear Bush is constantly trotting out these former Clinton era officers and Government types. They screwed the pooch so badly on their watch that nothing they say now is credible. Further, very few officers in the all-volunteer force would immediately contact anti-war types to say they were being sent to attack Iran without Congressional authorization. If they were, then revealing the fact would be leaking Top Secret information and subject to severe penalties under the UCMJ. (When it comes to the UCMJ, the ACLU can go pound sand.) Unlike the denizens of the fever swamps of the left, few officers are that dumb. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-09-26 13:28 |
| #3 Hoorah! A nice addition to the fog of pre-war: are we or aren't we? Will we or won't we? If we do, then we might, or maybe Bush is bluffing, but he never has before... I'd have a great deal of trouble sleeping at night just now if I lived near a target over there, even after getting up several times to see whether there were any Special Forces guys under the bed or peeking in at my window. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-26 12:49 |
| #2 Hit enter too sson... All war with Iran woudl mean now is that we have eliminated the proxies and are working directly on one of the sources, the primary one in this case (other than Saudi funding and Pak Madrassas). |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-09-26 12:38 |
| #1 We already are at war - at least thats what it looked like the last time I was in Balad and a few places outside Kabul. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-09-26 12:37 |