Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 02/24/2006 View Thu 02/23/2006 View Wed 02/22/2006 View Tue 02/21/2006 View Mon 02/20/2006 View Sun 02/19/2006 View Sat 02/18/2006
1
2006-02-24 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Top Ten Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2006-02-24 01:01|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 HAHAHA!! That was great.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-02-24 02:39||   2006-02-24 02:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Middle Eastern men? Hell, our own media does a great job of telegraphing the movements of our heavy bombers to the enemy.
Posted by gromky">gromky  2006-02-24 03:23|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/]  2006-02-24 03:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Top Ten Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran


scusa a me tipper.

revisione

#7.

When the moon hits your eye
Like a big-a pizza pie
That's amore
When the world seems to shine
Like you've had too much wine
That's amore


ringraziamenti
Posted by RD 2006-02-24 03:32||   2006-02-24 03:32|| Front Page Top

#4 You hit the nail on the head tipper! I would also add that items 3,4, and 5 will also be evident by increased com-trail displays over the US sky; and although not so noticeably seen in the public, a quiet movement of Israelis and jews out of Arab lands to the US and other western nations 30 days prior. A top secret request from Israel!

Items 1, 5, and 9 will be tipped off to the Iranians by Russian spy satellites which will spawn abrupt troop and missile movements preimptively which ironically will be 'factored in' the US's response as it's detection grid 'lights up'!
Posted by smn 2006-02-24 04:30||   2006-02-24 04:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Always good to keep an eye on the deployment of the fleet.

Right now we have a carrier (the Reagan) in the gulf along with an expeditionary strike group (special ops capable) and another carrier (the Roosevelt) in the Mediterranean on a 'port visit'.

The Enterprise and the Eisenhower are in the Atlantic ... somewhere.

A reminder about strikes, tho: The B2s struck Kosovo IIRC from Whitman AFB in Missouri, then refueled over the Atlantic and returned home. That was also the first combat use of the JDAMs it carries and the combination -- planes coming stealthily from another hemisphere, precision attacks on the Serbs without massive collateral damage, safe return to their home base -- rather changed the equation about bombing campaigns.

After Saddam invaded Kuwait and the Saudis asked us to intervene, the F-117 Night Hawks flew from Saudi bases, but again despite the massive anti-aircraft defenses around Baghdad we took out their command and control networks at night with no casualties to men or machines.

The point? First, that obvious major deployments of ships and planes may not be a requirement for a massive, but precision, attack on Iranian facilities. And second, that there may well be other capabilities in the pipeline. If we're contemplating sale of the F-117 to allies, it's not the cutting edge any more.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-24 07:38||   2006-02-24 07:38|| Front Page Top

#6 If I were an officer at the Pentagon and I wanted to confound the bad guys, I'd start holding pizza parties for my department every Friday. Really big pizza parties. Maybe I'd order a few deployments to coincide.
Posted by Mike 2006-02-24 07:56||   2006-02-24 07:56|| Front Page Top

#7 A tactician friend pointed out to me that there are two different ways that we can attack Iran, and that we need to focus on both for a favorable outcome.

The first is an "acute" attack, like in GW 1, that lasts from 1-30 days and emphasizes anti-missile defense as much as combined air attack offense. This is the war that everybody thinks of as the war; but in truth is only the "mission accomplished" part of the war.

The second is a "chronic" attack, that lasts from 30 days to as long as a year or more. It is designed to so thoroughly reduce Iran that large sections of the country can be sliced off, and Iran permanently partitioned.

The purpose of this is so that we go one step beyond the temporary partitioning of Iraq after GW 1, with its northern and southern "no-fly" zones, and "give" large chunks of Iran to adjacent nations that can both rule them and defend them.

This second part answers the question "What do you do with Iran once you have beaten it?" And it is just as important as defeating Iran in the first place, neutralizing their nuclear ambitions and missile programs.

Unlike Iraq, ruled by minority Sunnis, but still ruling "Iraqis", be they Kurds or Shiites; Iran's Persians are the majority, and do not see their hated minority Kurds, Arabs, Baluchs or Azeri as anything other than useless subjects. Foreigners living in their country.

This means that unlike Iraq, Iran is ripe for partition, enlarging their neighbors with their kind of people, and diminishing Persia from being an inherently large, powerful and unstable state to one that is more equal in size and strength to its peers.

We also learned our lesson with Iraq. That while we thought we could force Saddam to concern himself with his own people in favor of building up his military, he was left with enough resources so that by utterly despising his own people, he still could mount a threat.

So the Partitioning of Iran would be done specifically to prevent them from regaining their threatening stance, even if they committed their entire nation to do so.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-02-24 09:05||   2006-02-24 09:05|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually all the "movement" is probably pointed at the Euros. They really don't like folks pulling triggers so they may become more accomadating in pressuring the Iranians. My bet would be to start looking where the four recently refitted "boomers" are, since they can carry something like 150 cruise missles. Very accurate and almost no risk involved, not to mention there isn't a whole bunch the Iranians can do to stop an attack like that.
Posted by TopMac 2006-02-24 09:12||   2006-02-24 09:12|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't forget the bringing Iranian oil production back online part.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-24 09:12||   2006-02-24 09:12|| Front Page Top

#10 11. -Panic diplomacy by European nations trying secure oil contracts with suppliers other than Iran.
Posted by Whating Flager4285 2006-02-24 09:32||   2006-02-24 09:32|| Front Page Top

#11 This second part answers the question "What do you do with Iran once you have beaten it?"

The answer to that depends on how much salt we can acquire, how quickly we can get it, and how much it will cost.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-02-24 09:38|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-02-24 09:38|| Front Page Top

#12 Guys, the beautiful piece of real estate between Knob Knoster and Whiteman is Whiteman AFB.

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/
Posted by Pheresh Glesh6422 2006-02-24 12:02||   2006-02-24 12:02|| Front Page Top

#13 "What do you do with Iran once you have beaten it?"

While a good salt massage (ideally, each granule is laser etched with "US Embassy 1979"), certainly seems a splendid idea, an incredibly vigorous rendition of the Snoopy happy dance also comes to mind.
Posted by Zenster 2006-02-24 13:19||   2006-02-24 13:19|| Front Page Top

#14 IIRC, I saw a statistic somewheer to the efefct that most of the people living in Iran today were born after 1979. They're no fans of the mad mullahs; in fact, they'd love to be rid of them as much as we would. Take down the mullahocracy, and suddenly you've got another friendly country in the Middle East.
Posted by Mike 2006-02-24 15:11||   2006-02-24 15:11|| Front Page Top

#15 Take down the mullahocracy, and suddenly you've got another friendly country in the Middle East.

Yeah anyways.
Posted by Rafael 2006-02-24 15:45||   2006-02-24 15:45|| Front Page Top

#16 Sell it "Democracy! Whisky! Sexy!".

It seems to have worked in Iraq.
Posted by Clolugum Phomogum8353 2006-02-24 16:46||   2006-02-24 16:46|| Front Page Top

#17 I thought the Dominos Theory was discredited.
Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow  2006-02-24 18:18||   2006-02-24 18:18|| Front Page Top

#18 Iran's Persians are the majority

If they are, then only just. There hasn't been an accurate census for over 20 years and Persians could well be less than 50% of the population as they are more urbanized than other groups and hence have a lower birth rate.

CIA Factbook sez they are 51% of the population.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-02-24 18:30|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-02-24 18:30|| Front Page Top

#19 "What do you do with Iran once you have beaten it?"

I have my barf bag ready again, incase "W" puts out signals to rebuild Iran, as he did in Iraq, now the muslim mosques! I will just throw up at the thought of such hypocrasy; praying all along that doesn't happen during hurricane season here in the US again.
If Iran doesn't back down before the 'button is pushed' NOT A PENNY toward reconstruction afterwards!!
Posted by smn 2006-02-24 19:34||   2006-02-24 19:34|| Front Page Top

23:44 .com
23:42 Frank G
23:41 Frank G
23:40 smn
23:21 twobyfour
23:11 trailing wife
23:10 trailing wife
23:07 .com
23:06 .com
23:03 C-Low
23:02 trailing wife
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 Fred
22:51 trailing wife
22:49 CrazyFool
22:44 Bill Nelson
22:42 Vinkat Bala Subrumanian
22:41 Omavith Gleatle8151
22:38 Frank G
22:35 mojo
22:34 Vinkat Bala Subrumanian
22:31 Frank G
22:29 Alaska Paul
22:28 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com