As a backdrop to the investigation being conducted by the joint committee there is being waged a strange war, an undeclared and unacknowledged war; a war such as never before has been seen on sea or land. It is a war into which we were launched on the impulse of a President in the name of the United Nations, which has been striving ever since to disavow its paternity ...
***
That is one of the startling paragraphs a reader discovers when going back to read Senator McCarthy's infamous attack on General George C. Marshall. The screed, uttered on June 14, 1951, was made in the Senate during the Korean conflict. A long version, running 60,000 words, was entered into the Congressional Record. The New York Times ran out its story the next day under the headline "Marshall U.S. Foe, M'Carthy Charges" The subheadline was "Republican Asserts General Is Part of Conspiracy Seeking American Defeat by Russia."
We were moved to plough through the red-baiter's remarks after reading the op-ed piece by Peter Feaver, a professor at Duke, that the Boston Globe ran out Monday under the headline "MoveOn's McCarthy Moment." Mr. Feaver took MoveOn.org to task for its advertisement in the New York Times that accused General Petraeus of, as Mr. Feaver characterized it, "activities befitting a traitor" namely, lying about the war.
William Kristol, the Wall Street Journal, and Powerlineblog.com, among others, have commented eloquently about MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus. Both McCarthy and MoveOn.org reacted to someone whose views they loathed by questioning a general's loyalty. MoveOn.org pointedly suggested General Petraeus would "betray" America in Iraq by "cooking the books for the White House." McCarthy accused General Marshall, then the secretary of defense, of conspiring with Secretary of State Acheson to weaken America so we could eventually be conquered by the Soviet empire.
There are other similarities, such as the fact that MoveOn.org, and the left generally, have been upset by the way, in their view, President Bush has converted the universal sympathy America enjoyed after the attack of September 11, 2001, to what they claim is widespread hostility. McCarthy began his tirade with reference to "the question of why we fell from our position as the most powerful Nation on earth at the end of World War II to a position of declared weakness by our leadership."
Both demagogues MoveOn.org and McCarthy were upset about a war going through a difficult patch. MoveOn.org describes the Petraeus formula for keeping tabs on violence as "bizarre." McCarthy complained not only of a "strange" war but characterized it as having a "a nightmare quality" in which General Bradley reckoned we were fighting the "wrong enemy" and where the joint chiefs had "succumbed to the general confusion." There emanated from McCarthy, as there does from MoveOn.org, not only the tendency to assassinate the character of decent people but the unmistakable whiff of panic.
There are also differences. MoveOn.org wants to retreat from what it characterizes as "an unwinnable religious civil war." It frets that there is no "timetable for withdrawing all our troops." McCarthy, ontheotherhand, wasfighting against what he saw as retreat and compromise. "In everything that concerns the deadly and ruinous aspects of war the casualty rolls, the immense cost in treasure, the domestic strains, the fears we are at war," he said. "In everything that has to do with the constructive, hopeful aspect of war for war has those aspects too we are not at war."
Like the left in the current conflict, McCarthy chastised the administration for trying to frighten Americans, quoting a spokesman as saying, "This very Capitol Building, this very Senate Chamber may be blown to smithereens next week or the week after." McCarthy saw that as not the heart of America speaking (and notoriously quipped that "I do not think we need fear too much about the communists dropping atomic bombs on Washington. They would kill too many of their friends that way"). Like the Democrats today, McCarthy was thumping for his colleagues to "reassert the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to declare the policy of the United States."
This newspaper is not in the camp that seeks to rehabilitate McCarthy. It's not only that he had no sense of decency, as Joseph Welch marked, and was a demagogue but that he gave a generation of anti-Communism a bad name. Bad as McCarthy was, however, it would not surprise us if, when the historians are done with this period, MoveOn.org and its ilk come to be seen as worse. They have abandoned decency and bersmirched decent people not in pursuit of a more aggressive and broader fight against a vast evil but in pursuit of a capitulation. The one encouraging thing is that this is coming into focus as America is preparing to go into a national election, a process in which demagogues are often unmasked and the wisdom of the American people tends to assert itself.
. . . It was expected that the Petraeus-Crocker hearings would be two days of high drama. They were not. Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker were questioned about Iraq by Democrats on three full committees, including five candidates for the presidency, and the hearings were flat. Could it be the air is going out of Iraq as a hot political issue?
If true, it is good news. Good news, first of all, for this country, whose people may have grown tired of the war but are more so with the war's corrosive domestic politics.
Good news, too, for the Democrats. The Democrats in Congress need to put some space between themselves and the Web-footed antiwar movement. MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad in the New York Times made it difficult for any Democrat to breathe fire at Gen. Petraeus. MoveOn.org pre-used all that political capital. A malady endemic to the Web is that much of the Netroots is essentially narcissistic. That ad proved it's more about them than about elected Democrats. The politicians had better figure this out. A marriage of two narcissists often proves difficult. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/13/2007 06:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It was expected that the Petraeus-Crocker hearings would be two days of high drama
By whom? I think most people expected Barnum and Baily. Maybe he meant "high drama" as in high wires.
#2
After Senator Biden's 7 minutes he may find that there are neighborhoods more local than Iraq in which he would feel uncomfortable traveling through.
None of whom, for a second grasped the concept that leadership is fundamentally dependent upon mutual respect. There is no way that any of them will be able to 'lead' the military. They'll order. However, the military is not Skynet. It's composed of men and women who's presence is an act of 'the consent of the governed'. Expect retention and recruitment to drop. At a certain point the good guys will get out and the careerist will crawl to the top [or as the old adage went - in the cesspool the big chunks float to the top]. They will be oblivious to it all since they have no grasp the military culture other then the stereotypes projected by their scuzzy friends in Hollyweird.
. . . Yesterday, Gen. Petraeus prevailed in Congress. He stood his ground and threw them a bone. The anti-war faction made its speeches, denying and disputing everything he said before he said it, calling for shameless retreat and abandonment to no end. But it seems clear they are no more likely to manage that today than they were last month, or any time in the previous 9 months.
But Im in one of those moods where, prevailing over such absurdity American leadership that wants to surrender shamefully with no thought to consequences is no cause for celebration. It may be uglier work than war to have to deal with cowardice and treachery. May be, because the cowardice and treachery have thus far been thwarted, stifled, pushed off, and the people who have embraced them are revealing themselves to be shallow whores who lack conviction or principle too gutless even to be true to the shameful cause they profess. Beneath consideration, a nuisance to be dealt with. May be, because they would throw away and dishonor the sacrifices of the dead and the maimed who constitute the real tragedy and ugliness of war, and condemn untold numbers to a terrible fate.
Six years in, Im tired and feeling a little down. That happens in war, and you have to pick yourself up and keep going. Our country looks almost like normal most days, though for many of us, it will never be as it was, and the fight is far from over. Its as normal as its going to get for me now, war the new normal. But I am out of combat for now. Others who are in it have all of this and more to pick themselves up from, and keep going. I hope they know some of us want it to be worth it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/13/2007 06:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
. . . Yesterday, Gen. Petraeus prevailed in Congress. He stood his ground and threw them a bone.
Hell, I'd say he "boned" that bunch of dhemmi cry baby hand wringing out-of-touch surrenderists. General Petraeus is a good and honorable man.
#1
Islam is increasingly being asserted by Muslims as relevant to American legal controversies.
Muslims will assert that Islam is relevant to the dinosaurs if it will give them some sort of edge. The only relevance shari'a law has to America's legal system is that it should be banned in all forms.
EFL
For several years tensions between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program have waxed and waned. War between the two sides has been confidently predicted, with even the date of the US attack given by Internet pundits. Nothing happened. With so many past false alarms it is hard to take seriously the renewed rumors of war between the two sides. However, this time things may be different. US President George W Bush has said he will not leave office (in January 2009) with Iran retaining the capability to develop nuclear weapons. Unless Iran agrees to give up all hope of a nuclear-weapons program, as Libya and North Korea have done, A little soon for clearing North Korea, even if they are unloading their fissile material.
a US military strike against Iran will probably occur at some point between now and the US presidential elections in November 2008. A short, victorious war with Iran, leaving its nuclear facilities in ruins, will, it is hoped, assure the Republican candidate of victory in that election.
Any idea that a US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be merely a scaled-up surgical strike like Israel's bombing of Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 must be put aside. The attack on Iran would encompass not only its nuclear sites, but all its air defenses and all its means of military retaliation, in fact all sections of its armed forces, as well as government command and control facilities. It has been suggested that this would be accomplished by the destruction of 1,200 Iranian targets in three days of massive aerial assaults, the sort of "shock and awe" attacks that were promised in Iraq in 2003 but had less impact than expected.
With time running out and convincing pretexts for war hard to find, the Bush administration may well decide to launch an attack on Iran anyway. Iran is already diplomatically isolated, but if the United States undertakes unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state, This is doubtful in the extreme. Europe is holding its breath, hoping America will slam Iran. Then they will use that held breath to condemn us roundly once they are done cheering in private. Russia and China will sulk and interfere as usual.
As always, it is important to note that tyrannies have no sovereign rights. Something the author neglects to recognize.
One of the dumb things Europe did when it colonized much of the rest of the world was to spread the Westphalian idea of absolute sovereignty. We shouldn't be surprised that thugs and dictators are its most ardent defenders ...
it may well find itself equally isolated. No doubt the British would find a few planes and warships to provide a token force to show solidarity with their US ally, but wider support would be hard to find. Since one of the declared aims of any attack on Iran is, in the words of Bush, "to prevent a second Holocaust", some Israeli participation is likely. A few Israeli planes might join the US aerial assault on Iran, but Israel's most likely role would be to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and perhaps the Syrians, should they decide to support the Iranians.
In the US scenario, when the dust settles after the aerial onslaught, the chastened ayatollahs will crawl out of the ruins and give in to all of Bush's demands. But what if they do not? US plans for the attack on Iran rule out a land war because the United States lacks sufficient troops, but why should the victim tailor his response to suit the aggressor's preconceptions? The vital question in the unfolding US-Iran crisis is not whether the Americans plan to attack Iran, since they are clearly prepared to do so, but whether the Iranians, after enduring the initial onslaught, have the will and resources to fight back.
With Iran's regular armed forces largely destroyed, the Iranian government would have to fall back on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to organize further resistance and retaliation. According to its new commander, the IRGC is ready and able to undertake extensive operations in asymmetrical warfare with a superior military opponent. Mining and suicide attacks by boats and planes might well disrupt tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a rapid increase in world oil prices. No doubt the United States would organize tanker convoys with full air and sea protection, but the mosquito forces of the IRGC might still pierce such defenses. If the Iranians could carry out a sustained campaign against shipping in the Persian Gulf, the US might well be forced to start occupying Iranian ports to deny bases to the attackers. Once troops were ashore, they would soon be drawn into battles with guerrillas in the Iranian hinterland.
While not all Iraqi Shi'ites are as pro-Iranian as some reports suggest, there can be little doubt that many in Iraq's majority population would fight in support of their neighbors and co-religionists. The war against the US in Iraq would be intensified, and no doubt Iranian forces would openly enter Iraq to support that struggle as well as supplying resisters with more advanced weaponry such as shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Indeed, given the present power vacuum in southern Iraq, the Iranians might even manage to occupy important cities such as Basra. If a major land war developed in Iraq, the United States would be compelled to expand its army there considerably. This could only be done in the short run by stripping the US and overseas garrisons such as South Korea and Okinawa of all combat troops. In the longer term, the US government might have to consider reintroducing conscription to sustain troop numbers, whatever the domestic political consequences.
As in Iraq in 2003, the US plan for a military attack on Iran presupposes that once the enemy has suffered a massive initial blow he will accept the inevitable and surrender. In Iraq, the conventional armed forces were easily broken, but the unconventional war with local insurgents and militias is still raging more than four years later. Similarly, the Iranian armed forces might be severely damaged by America's aerial assault, but the IRGC and other less conventional forces might continue the struggle in Iraq, in Iran's borderlands, and in the waters of the Persian Gulf for years to come. A rather optimistic assessment of the IRGC's long term abilities.
Fears of the "Shi'ite crescent" will have given birth to an arc of war stretching from Palestine to Pakistan. Which has been long overdue.
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/13/2007 05:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
it may well find itself equally isolated
Yes, yes. China will stop exporting to USA, Europe will expel US military, and Mexicans will leave US soil in disgust!
#2
Unless Iran agrees to give up all hope of a nuclear-weapons program, as Libya and North Korea have done
Haha!
A short, victorious war with Iran, leaving its nuclear facilities in ruins, will, it is hoped, assure the Republican candidate of victory in that election.
I'm sure Dems will be hoping for a short war with all their hearts. And I doubt W would bomb Iran and kill a bunch of people just for the sake of politics. This is probably the only thing the writer understands, so he is projecting it on W.
the sort of "shock and awe" attacks that were promised in Iraq in 2003 but had less impact than expected
Got a better term for it, bu++wipe? If someone bombed 1200 targets in an area the size of Iran, anyone with a functioning brain cell would see the validity of the term, even if they refused to admit it. And an author with a functioning brain cell would understand that.
[the US] may well find itself equally isolated
??? I expect hollow criticism, but not much more.
but Israel's most likely role would be to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and perhaps the Syrians, should they decide to support the Iranians
You mean like the Iranians were hoping that Iraq had us pinned down?
ayatollahs will crawl out of the ruins and give in to all of Bush's demands. But what if they do not?
The population would be complicit then if the IRG was destroyed. I say bomb them again. Rinse and repeat until simple western reason makes sense to them.
the Iranian government would have to fall back on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to organize further resistance and retaliation
Like we'd leave them in one piece? I had no idea our military leaders were so stoopid.
Mining and suicide attacks by boats and planes might well disrupt tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a rapid increase in world oil
And what be the price of Iran having nukes?
In Iraq, the conventional armed forces were easily broken, but the unconventional war with local insurgents and militias is still raging more than four years later.
How 'bout a sentence or two on how that Iraqi insurgency is fueled by Iran? When you're done trying to avoid that question, I'd like to know what state is supposedly going to fuel an insurgency in Iran? Russia/China? Dangerous business. I don't think they'd want to get too involved, it would be too big an effort and too easily exposed. China depends on us and neither have an excuse they can air in public that has a leg to stand on, not that any of their real reasons have a leg.
And I don't think the IRGC is good for anything except internal show, and their equipment sux. They have a couple diesel subs, but they have to come to the surface every few hours and start their engines. All we have to do is wait them out and then they might last 15 minutes in a fight.
I would think the banks of the waterways would be a bad place for would-be missile teams to hang out at night given IR vision, so run the tankers then. Mines can be cleared. Oil reserves can last quite a while. The US has domestic production, too. All the US needs to do if it really needs more oil is to take care of one guy dressed like a clown in Venezuela.
#3
In the US scenario, when the dust settles after the aerial onslaught, the chastened ayatollahs will crawl out of the ruins and give in to all of Bush's demands. But what if they do not?
If the US intent is to dismantle or destroy Iran's nuclear capability, then it matters not what the big turbans say. In fact, being fanatics by definition, what else would one expect but fanatical response?
#7
My 2c worth is bomb Iranian weapons factories, storage facilities and distribution infrastructure. It will put back any Iranian conventional ambitions by several years and could be justified based on their shipping arms to Iraq (and Syria Lebanon).
And of course their oil refineries, which would cause real economic pain and likely massive social unrest.
#8
It has been suggested that this would be accomplished by the destruction of 1,200 Iranian targets in three days of massive aerial assaults, the sort of "shock and awe" attacks that were promised in Iraq in 2003 but had less impact than expected.
That impact being the utter destruction of the 4th largest military in the world. One which the left simultaneously claimed was no threat and was too dangerous to confront. Sound familiar?
#9
Just level Kharg Island - the Iranian economy would disappear without the oil shipments. Plus, hit the 3 major refineries making gasoline in the country and watch the fun start when Iran runs out of gasoline -- most gasoline is imported into Iran.
#10
My two cents: sabotage Iranian gasoline refineries and let the people do the rest.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/13/2007 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Level the ports and refineries. Carpet bomb the surface-to-surface missile sites that threaten the strait. Let nature (the population) do the rest while arming them.
#12
Again let me point out the obvious: Iran may already *have* nuclear weapons, and we *know* that they already have effective missiles.
Just because Iran is making a big show of enriching uranium does not mean that they already do not have uranium and plutonium from North Korea.
This means that if we just attack their uranium enrichment facilities we may accomplish NOTHING.
Their nuclear weapons assembly sites would be nowhere near their uranium enrichment sites.
So after we bombed them, then WHAT DO WE DO?
The American public and the Democrat party would wash their hands of Iran, and the push to take US forces out of Iraq would increase. This would leave Iran able to assemble a LARGE number of NUCLEAR MISSILES in peace.
So that Iran would get what it wanted. Sure, its uranium enrichment facilities would be gone, but so what? Some holes in the desert? They would have maybe ten or twenty nuclear missiles, maybe more.
And in a few years, some of those missiles would be three stage Shahab-5+ ICBMs, capable of reaching the United States.
And wouldn't President Clinton and the Democrat congress be surprised when nuclear missiles start landing on US soil, even though they showed how NICE the US is, by canceling our missile defense programs?
Yes, we'd all like to hammer Iranian nuke facilities. And we'd particularly like to drop a daisy-cutter on Short Round and the Mad Mullahs.
But that's not necessarily the smart way to go. People have a tendency to rally around their country and their leaders, odious as they may be, when bombs start falling. Check out the North Vietnamese people. Check out the Iraqis during the Iraq-Iran war. Bombing just makes people mad at the bombers.
And we don't want to turn the Iranian people against us. Many of them are pre-disposed to like us right now since they like American-style culture, freedom and materialism. We don't want to lose that.
Use the silent hand. Use the quiet forces. Do the things that can't be traced back to us. Make the Mad Mullahs sweat. Make them angry and make them lash out at their own people. Cause them to lose their nerve, because then they'll lose their grip on power.
We don't have to go into Iran with guns blazing. We don't have to send Slim Pickins and the BUFFs.
Our target isn't a facility. Our target isn't a weapon. Our target isn't a system.
Our target is a cabal of evil men. We need to get them. Let's not forget that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/13/2007 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm going to side with the hawks on this one.
Special Ops take time. We haven't got much of that.
Bombing will piss off the locals, no doubt. But not that much. We have gotten really good at hitting just military targets while leaving everything else intact.
And the point isn't to bomb Iran into a western style democracy. The point is to set them back as far as possible. Several years if not a decade. That, and kill their economy. A poor nation can't export arms and cash to Hezballah, Syria and Iraq, and it will have its hands more than full dealing with its unhappy citizens.
Yes, yes. China will stop exporting to USA, Europe will expel US military, and Mexicans will leave US soil in disgust!
ROLF! G*rom
Oh! that hi-brow crowd of wanking asshats who whine and complain about "our standing" in the World of Our Allies ie, 'Cut-Throats'!!
Like Germany, pulling out on the sanction regime against Iran. *spit*
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
09/13/2007 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Take a mothballed F-14 or two and paint it with Iranian markings, rig it to run by remote control, and plow it into one of the Nuclear sites. Even better do so with a dozen planes painted as a squadron.
Then make sure there is some footage of said attacks that show the Iranian markings.
Then announce through different ways (faked video tapes would be nice) that the squadron wanted to avoid Iranian destruction that the Mullahs were trying to bring about.
#17
Their mobile missiles will pose a problem. Gulf War 1 was prolonged as we sought them out. Something has to be done to cause the Ayatollahs to sue for peace, immediately. Escalation is certain should we attack and missiles fly at Carrier groups.
Helluva fine question, 'moose. I would truly enjoy hearing your own analysis of how to cope with a potential clandestine weapons assembly drive already underway in Iran.
From the get-go, I have maintained that in order to genuinely pacify Iran, its leadership must be removed. Decapitating strikes that eliminate the mullacracy and Ahmadinejad are required to squelch all sources of aggressive rhetoric that continues to polarize the Iranian people. Fewif anyother measures will substantially decrease the public will to continue pursuit of nuclear weapons. Denuding Iran of its offensive military capability is a good start but neutralizing the ideological drivers is of equal importance.
As to actual ongoing and physical progress towards construction of a nuclear bomb, does anyone have some deeper insight into the Parchin military complex? Many years ago it became clear to me that this is one of the most vital weapons development facilities in Iran. Current images do not provide the detail of one site referred to in an old article that I cannot locate. In the older piece, aerial close-ups showed a distinct test pit with a dozen radiating trenches designed to carry sensing and detection data streams away from the central blast site. This radial pattern is a dead giveaway for locations designed to test the high-explosive lenses needed for initiation of a nuclear device. If anyone has more information about this or another similar site, please post it here.
The point being that if Iran were making some serious progress towards functional assembly of a nuclear device, there should have been dozens of explosive tests at Parchin or an equivalent site. Such massive detonations are easily picked up by our global seismic monitoring systems and should have allowed us a real-world estimate of just how much progress Iran has been making towards nuclear capability. A sequence of tests that showed continuously improving yieldalong with increasing time-concentration in the triggering of multiple subassemblieswould provide an easily detected and unmistakable acoustic signature.
As for how to physically interfere with progress towards building an atomic bomb, one sure way is to destroy hydroelectric and fossil fuel power generation sites. A weapons research lab is an energy intensive affair and cutting its power shutters the facility.
I am disinclined to advocate total destruction of such vital resources within Iran. Total havoc does not play to our best interests. As an example, rather than bomb the Kharg Island pumping complex outright, merely sever all of the main conduits flowing into it so that repairs can be effected but interdicted as needed. Kharg Island is sixteen miles offshore and highly vulnerable to having it's feeder pipelines being cut. Similarly, instead of demolishing dams and generation facilities, first hit the high-tension transmission lines or substations. Both of these less severe measures would obtain similar yet more easily reversed end results.
#19
Zen: The point being that if Iran were making some serious progress towards functional assembly of a nuclear device, there should have been dozens of explosive tests at Parchin or an equivalent site. Such massive detonations are easily picked up by our global seismic monitoring systems and should have allowed us a real-world estimate of just how much progress Iran has been making towards nuclear capability. A sequence of tests that showed continuously improving yieldalong with increasing time-concentration in the triggering of multiple subassemblieswould provide an easily detected and unmistakable acoustic signature.
I don't recall hearing about this kind of stuff before NorK announced they had a "deterrent". Perhaps the plans they purchased from Khan did away with this need, or perhaps word didn't reach the ears of one of our Poolitzer Prize-hungry MSM folks so it didn't get out. Any ideas here? Could Iran head down the same path? If NorK managed to sneak by somehow, then I assume Iran could.
#22
Iranians (Persians) are nationalistic as hell.
Free Radical, I think you may be overestimating the Iranian people's regard for their Shiite interlopers. Persia had quite an illustrious history before Islamic domination stagnated it. Many Iranians are acutely aware of this. Also, do not neglect the fact that an entire generation of Iranian people enjoyed a measure of real freedom and prosperity under Shah Reza Pahlavi. Memories of those good times die pretty hard, especially under the grinding boot heel of Iran's Shiite mullacracy.
#23
Adding to Zenter's comment, even if the Iranians DO turn out to be "Nationalistic" in response, they will have merely demonstrated that they are part of the problem. Anyone who casts their lot with the Mad Mullahs is deserving of whatever comes their way.
#24
We're playing the what if game a little too much today. The only what if we should be asking asking is, What if we wait too long and they get a nuke? not what if they already have one. If they had it, they'd tell us, you can bank on that.
Bomb the damn nuke sites already. And all the power lines running to it. Then bomb them both some more. After taking out their air defense, of course.
It matters not if the Iranian people will get mad about us bombing their nuke facilities. The nuke program has to go before it's too late. It's about saving us, not about keeping them from getting mad.
Yes, I understand it would be preferable to stop the nukes another way, but we need to be realistic. The Mullahs and Short Round would spend their very last dollar on getting a nuke. I don't see how we can completely and thoroughly cripple their economy with only a few countries by our side. Which is what it would take.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/13/2007 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Actually there is a historical precedent for thr overthrow of the mullahs. Apparently there was an event in Persian history, 2500 years or so ago that has a name very similar to "The Day They Killed All the Priests".
#26
If I was Iran I would have bought a few nukes before I started my own program, then blow one off and claim it was a test to really freak out those that say you're 10 years out. Would buy time and provide a deterent at the same time BEFORE the pressure raised..
#27
With Iran's regular armed forces largely destroyed, the Iranian government would have to fall back on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to organize further resistance and retaliation.
This is where Mr. Alan G Jamieson is a tad off-base, by assuming that the IRGC would be left alone. Zenster's right when he says the author has a rather optimistic view of the IRGC's abilities. The Iranian military has largely remained apolitical. Draw from that what you will.
Adding to Zenter's comment, even if the Iranians DO turn out to be "Nationalistic" in response, they will have merely demonstrated that they are part of the problem.
Substitute 'Israelis' for 'Iranians' and you have the Paleo excuse for bombing pizza parlors.
#28
Iranians (Persians) are nationalistic as hell.
Persians are almost certainly a minority in Iran (aka the Persian Empire) and a minority in most of the teritory of Iran. They may well find the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkomen, etc are more nationalistic than them.
The worst times, as we see, separate the civilized of the world from the uncivilized. This is the moment of clarity. Let the civilized toughen up, and let the uncivilized take their chances in the game they started.
Read the whole thing, again. Among the civilised who toughened up was Glasgow's JohnSmeaton, now celebrated in New York:
A baggage handler hailed as a hero after helping police subdue an attacker at Scotland's Glasgow Airport is being honored in New York for his actions ...
"Our members are thrilled at the opportunity of meeting a modern Scottish hero," American-Scottish Foundation president Alan Bain said, according to Britain's Press Association.
"Our organization has always highlighted the best qualities of Scots and Scots Americans, and John Smeaton captured the hearts of the world with his show of bravery."
The lunatic jihadi Smeaton tackled subsequently died of self-inflicted burns. As Lance wrote: "Let the uncivilized take their chances."
"Let the uncivilized take their chances." That line's a keeper.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Let the uncivilized take their chances."
Nice sentiment, but if we're really smart, we'll leave nothing to chance.
#5
The wanker that Mr Smeaton gave a kicking to was in the hospital near where I work having his burns tended to.
You would not *believe* some of the comments I heard about what should really be done with him. From all walks of life.
I take that to mean the line between civilisation and (temporary?) barbarism is getting pretty thin.
I really do fear what will happen if the West (specifically Europe) removes the mask of civilisation - after all, this is a continent that has had war raging to and fro for literally hundreds of years and ended up inventing the dehumanising and extermination of people on an industrial scale.
To my mind, there's something very nasty lurking under the surface in Europe, and I don't think it should be woken up. I'm not talking about military might here "Europe roars and the World listens, especially those stupid Americans", but something...darker.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/13/2007 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You would not *believe* some of the comments I heard about what should really be done with him. From all walks of life.
Considering that this tosser and his fellow terrorist timed their murderous attack to coincide with the greatest number of families and children being present at Glasgow's air terminal, yes I would.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
