The Americans can do nothing, says the Thug-In-Chief. I'm not sure about that, but I think he is probably right that the Americans lack the will to do anything. By Ali Akbar Dareini for AP, with thanks to Mackie:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The United States is incapable of inflicting "serious damage" on Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, as a second U.S. aircraft carrier group steamed toward the Gulf as a warning from Washington for Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region.In an interview with Iranian state television, Ahmadinejad said Washington had not stepped up its campaign against Tehran, despite the standoff with the West over Iran's defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment. The U.N. Security Council imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.
"U.S. rhetoric against Iran has not increased," Ahmadinejad said. "In 2003, they openly threatened to attack Iran. Now they have indirectly made such threats."
He spoke with confidence over Iran's ability to withstand a strike. "The United States is unable to inflict serious damage on Iran," the president said. He also noted, "They (U.S.) are not really in a position to carry out this action (of attacking Iran). I believe there are many wise people in the United States who would not let it happen."
Invade Iran leave Iraq Arbitrage
200 battle phase deaths in Iraq, that was a ground invasion. If we leave Iraq, and invade Iran we get something for our deaths.
Occupation phase deaths are 70 per month, for which we get nothing. The American people want victories, not long drawn out occupations.
Iraq can't threaten us, as long as we don't bring refugees like we brought the Hmong from Vietnam. Take the refugees to Lebanon and Egypt, whom we pay already and get nothing.
Iran, Pakistan and North Korea want nukes on subs. Saudi Arabia is funding it for Pakistan and wants them. So does UAE. These small producers have to sell and share because they don't have the infrastructure of the US or USSR to do it on their own.
Thomas Holsinger gave a detailed analysis of an Iran ground invasion. Links to that and James Fallow Atlantic Article are here:
re Thomas Holsinger on “The Case for Invading Iran”
President Tom is insane. We soon will have 2 carrier battle groups in the gulf. If we approach a war with Iran as just that - no occupation, no concerns for rebuilding or setting up interim governments, we can easily blast them completely out of the nuclear arms race without putting any boots on the ground. Again, the key is going in with just that on the agenda. Neutralize them, ruin their oil industry, keep their heads underground with air power and tomahawks.
It appears we have the support of almost the entire Gulf region on this. None of Iran's neighbors want President Tom's regime, nor that of the mullahs, in power and rattling sabres. The latest buzz is that the NORK regime is assisting Iran in preparing a nuke test site.
This may come to a head sooner rather than later.
While whistling past the graveyard as usual, the Iranian president said....
The supreme simian MUST be stupid-he has learned absolutely nothing from his neighbors the Iraqis. They used to talk the same exact crap. The US could easily lay waste to all of Iran by merely pushing a few buttons (the USSR probably would have by now had Iran been this provocative for this long toward it). We are more civilized than that. If we ever summon the will to deal with this loudmouth pipsqueak Satan Khomeini's glorious revolution will be kaput in short order.
Normally I don't comment on the Iraq War as to whether it was the right thing or not to do on this sight. I know there are many here including Hugh that believe the Iraq war was a strategic blunder. But consider something else far beyond the sunni/shia conflict within Iraq. Keep in mind that there are thousands of military minds at work in the Pentagon everyday plotting what will be the the best strategy for defending not only America but the free world as a whole from radical islam. Strategically no General wants to give up land when positioning himself to fight an enemy. Look how Iran is surrounded by two countries that are now occupied by American and coalition troops as well as NATO troops in Afghanistan. What better positions to be in for an all out invasion of Iran in my estimation just think about it a little.
Mackie is right. We paid 3000 lives to get our bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will pay less attention when we leave Iraq, not more.
A Nimitz class carrier has 5700 people on it. Iran has Russian anti-ship missiles. We lost 200 killed in the ground invasion of Iraq. Iran has 550,000 total military for a large country. Iran can't defend its whole country from us on 3 sides, 2 by land, 1 by sea.
We can pull our ships out and send our troops down the north coast of the Persian Gulf and clear out their anti-ship missiles.
Six brutal truths about Iraq
COMMENTARY | December 11, 2006
General William Odom
Also has comments below it.
Ground combat phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. That's the time to fight wars. US lost 50,000 in Vietnam. Our leaders are panicking when they should attack.
95 percent probability: in next 100 years we will fight a war with Muslims where we lose over 50,000 killed. We should fight now when we lose 3000 or 200 killed. We don't understand we are in a real war, and right now we have a huge but temporary advantage in losing lives. Congress is full of panicking fools.
"Congress is full of panicking fools."
The Congress Hall does sound a lot like a large chicken coop...
Is it a lack of will on the part of the current US administration or is it inertia brought on by the duplicity of Russia, China and France and the fence-sitting of most other major western nations?
There are two obstacles preventing a successful U.S. attack on Iran:
First, by Rep. Jane Harmon's own admission, our intelligence community has been unable to pinpoint the locations of all of Iran's secret nuclear facilities. Given how badly the CIA overestimated Saddam's capability for Weapons of Mass Destruction, this should surprise no one. Hence we would be throwing the equivalent of a blind punch and hoping for the best. We would never know if we targeted the correct facilities. President Clinton tried such an air campaign against Saddam's Iraq in 1998, "Operation Desert Fox." The results were inconclusive.
Second, Ahmedinijad's own oil industry analysts have reportedly calculated that an attack on Iran would send oil prices soaring into the stratosphere--if Iran's oil industry were damaged, speculators could send the price of oil as high as $400 a barrel. That would severely damage the economies of both America and Western Europe--how long would Americans tolerate paying $8.00 a gallon for gasoline?
Ahmedinijad has therefore concluded that America is bluffing.
And that's why he's throwing his weight around.
EricInTexas wrote:
Ruin Iran's oil industry and you will destroy America's economy.
World oil prices would spike past $200 a barrel by speculators in the commodities market. (Remember, just the tension caused by the U.N. taking up the issue of Iran last year caused oil prices to spike $25 a barrel.)
Gasoline prices in America would quadruple at least--assuming you could even find gasoline at your local filling station anymore. Western Europe would fare even worse, since France gets half their oil from Iran.
What do you propose doing about all that?
His speech mocks the United States because he knows full well that China and Russia - (who both have big deals with Iran and also with big-mouthed Chavez) - will protect them from any military attack.
His speech is designed to rally the arab world, which already hates the United States and doesn't need much coaxing to jump on the stand up to America bandwagon.
His speech also tries to quiet those who are listening to the intellectuals in Iran that are opposed to his rhetoric.
I wonder who is pulling his strings and writing his speeches.
The Congress Hall does sound a lot like a large chicken coop...
I sure as hell didn't vote them in.
That would severely damage the economies of both America and Western Europe--how long would Americans tolerate paying $8.00 a gallon for gasoline?
Ahmedinijad has therefore concluded that America is bluffing.
And that's why he's throwing his weight around.
Posted by: Steven L.
Shell bought the patent 20+ years ago to a process of water fuel engines....just to keep them in the oil business.
Eliminate Iran and start using water.
"I believe there are many wise people in the United States who would not let it happen."
It sounds like pleading to me, born of fear, and rightfully so.
Here you go folks
China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
Actually the Americans DO right now have the will to impeach Bush and bury their hands in the sand to the problems closing in on them.
But other than that, the American people have run scared and it's a sorry-assed spectacle to observe.
old atlantic I appreciate the 'six brutal truths' link.
Very interesting site. I will be going back there.
About Gen. Odom. I heard him on FOX News the other day and was not really impressed with him. At the bottom of the citation it says that he was a military advisor to Brzezinski, who was national security advisor to Dimmie Carter and takes credit for spreading Islam in Asia to hurt the Soviets.
See pages 209 - 211 in Serge Trifkovic's book "The Sword of the Profit".
Kind of dangerous to take advice from someone like him.
Gasoline prices in America would quadruple at least--assuming you could even find gasoline at your local filling station anymore. Western Europe would fare even worse, since France gets half their oil from Iran.
What do you propose doing about all that?
Posted by: Steven L
We start by occupying all of Iraq's oil supplies. We lean on KSA to open up the spigots - OR ELSE. since we'd be neutralizing Iran for them we expect to GET PAID in return. IE oil.
Let France worry where she gets her oil. Putin could step in.
The good news is that Iran's Nuke facilities were built by The Russians. Can you say Chernoybl?
Have you ever ridden in a Russian car? Ick.
And guys, don't buy for a minute that we don't know exactly where those installations are.
PS: I caught a rumor going around in the ME that the Israelis were turned back by our military when they tried to fly a raid on Iran Jan. 19. That they were refused the IFF Squaw codes to fly over Iraq. And that they were loaded with nukes!
auntbea, "Kind of dangerous to take advice from someone like him."
I agree. I put the link up to illustrate the point of view, also the discussion below his piece, good or bad.
Ruin Iran's oil industry and you will destroy America's economy.
World oil prices would spike past $200 a barrel by speculators in the commodities market. (Remember, just the tension caused by the U.N. taking up the issue of Iran last year caused oil prices to spike $25 a barrel.)
Gasoline prices in America would quadruple at least--assuming you could even find gasoline at your local filling station anymore. Western Europe would fare even worse, since France gets half their oil from Iran.
What do you propose doing about all that?
Posted by: Steven L. at January 24, 2007 01:28 PM
Steven L.:
Do you know how much (or little) oil the US buys from Iran in specific and the ME in general? I understand it is $0 in the case of Iran since the days of the US Embassy siege and not that much from the ME generally.
As for ruining Iran's economy via oil embargoes, Iran's mullahs have been very good at destroying Iran's economy; the rest of the world needs to do little. Unfortunately, the Chinese have been happy to step up to the plate and buy from Iran. No, in fact, Iran's mullahs have been so grossly incompetent at managing the economy that most petroleum products used by Iranians is refined elsewhere because their own refineries are so decrepit.
What Iran has been good at is threatening the economies of other oil producers by mining the Straits of Hormuz and other bellicosities. And, of course, fuelling sectarian violence in Iraq and Lebanon and using various proxies to attack Israel. That's what Iran is good for.
The idea of another "invasion" (Iran) with resultant "occupation" would not find much acceptance among Americans. Serious and continuous "wounding" of Iran's military capabilities, without "boots on the ground" that draw IEDs, RPGs, and mujahadis from all over would be preferable.
The best follow-up to surgical disruption of Iran's grandiose war plans would be putting Saudi "boots on the ground" into Iran (fat chance of that; Saudis want us [US] to die for them, not the other way around).
Doomsday scenarios about oil are misplaced. If there really were a chance that the oil states would attack each other's oil installations, the American government can seize those oilfields, close to the Persian Gulf (or, if you are an Arab, or in the business of appeasing the Arabs, call it the "Arabian Gulf") in both Khuzistan and in Saudi Arabia. Far easier to seize and control them, than to try to protect the oilfields of Iraq.
Lets attack SHELL and get the patents back from them!! Also all other oil co's that have bought tech. and sat on it. Ha ha (sort of)
FYI--Pastor John Hagee from San Antonio is focusing on radical Islam on his daily program this week. So far he has had Walid Shoebat Mon. and Tues. and today and tommorow is having Brigitte Gabriel and is also offering the film "Obsession". Excellent interviews both.
guide inside:
Pastor John Hagee has been one of the most outspoken critics from his pulpit on fundamental Islam for sometime now.
In my book this powerfull charismatic preacher deserves praise from the jihadwatch site for his no nonsence approach to what he clearly sees as threats to the western, and civilized world.
Obviously, Iran doesn't know of our capabilities, and that's good. We've lost enough secret technology during the Clinton years to recover from. I assure you, if the U.S. was to deliberately destroy Iran, it'll be so quiet, you can hear a pin drop.
I've said this so many times, I am losing my breath. Oh well, I might as well say it again. Israel (or the U.S. depending on who has more guts) must strike hard, strike fast, and strike NOW! This is total war. Israel must hit all of Iran's military and nuclear sites and all of its' major population centers. It must be remembered that the Iranian people themselves, like the Germans and Japanese, are also the enemy. This Iranian government was put into power by them in 1979 of their own free will (albeit through revolution and not ballots). It has remained in power specifically because of either their tacit support or unwillingness to seriously oppose it in any way (perhaps both) even though it is carrying them and their country into a disastrous war which they are certain to lose. Furthermore, the cities of Iran are constitute the economic/industrial center of Iran and well as the regime's centers of political power for holding the country togeather. Annihilate them and the regime will disintegrate along with Iran as a threat to anyone else forever more. Lastly, it must be remembered they are almost all muslims. As such, they must be shown no mercy for they have shown none and will show none to Israel (or us for that matter). In this regard, Israel must play in their ballpark, so to speak. The total destruction of Iran would remove the greatest threat to both Israel and the West now and forevermore from that part of the world. it would also teach in no uncertain terms the remaining muslim states the severe consequences of jihadism. Now is not the time to be timid or sniveling about "human rights" for an enemy that doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at January 24, 2007 07:02 PM
Shell bought the patent 20+ years ago to a process of water fuel engines....just to keep them in the oil business.
Eliminate Iran and start using water.
Posted by: The Goobs
Yes, and wasn't it Exxon that bought the rights to the 100 mi/gal carburetor 30 or 40 years ago? Seriously, if such miracle gadgets did exist, someone would be producing them, and in huge numbers. There are plenty of rogue states that don't abide by patent laws.
What does the sharia have to say about patent law?
Yes, and wasn't it Exxon that bought the rights to the 100 mi/gal carburetor 30 or 40 years ago? Seriously, if such miracle gadgets did exist, someone would be producing them, and in huge numbers. There are plenty of rogue states that don't abide by patent laws.
What does the sharia have to say about patent law?
Posted by: ebonystone
Someone at British Leyland invented the water fuel engine - which is now being called hydrogen fuel cars (in Germany). The technology has been available, but big oil has stopped it from being used.
Another example would be that Europeans have access to wonderful fuel-efficient diesel cars, etc. When I lived there, my Ford was getting over 600 miles to the tank. Why doesn't Ford offer the same cars here? Why hasn't America got the Smart Car? Canada has it! Maybe someone WANTS us to suck the gas as quick as they can line their pockets?
If the technology for water fuel engines has beenlocked away - do you REALLY think that a bunch of arabs in the ME would wish to to develop it? I believe they are too interested in selling the oil they produce.
It is a fallacy to think that if we can defeat Iran easily now, we can do it at any time in the future that we want. We have to remove their nuclear program, subs and missiles now, while we lose only 200 to 2000 dead in a ground invasion.
If we wait, someone may give them nukes, we may be busy in other things, or they may form an alliance with other states, e.g. Russia and China or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or North Korea.
We should strike Iran now in a ground invasion while we can and while they are isolated. Waiting is the same Bush Clinton stupidity with North Korea and other threats.
Former CIA head James Woolsey says must attack Iran
Diplomacy alone won't work
quote
A former head of the CIA, speaking in Israel, said that he expects diplomacy alone will not force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons.
"There is a very substantial likelihood that if the diplomatic approach failed -- and I think it will -- and non-violent regime change won't work (in Iran), there is no alternative except for the U.S. to use force," said James Woolsey, according to The Jerusalem Post.
end quote
quote
Woolsey also warned that the United States, Israel, and their allies could face an empowered threat if various extremist factions in the region align. "The Wahhabis, al-Qaida, the Vilayat Faqih in Teheran, although often lethally competitive with one another in the way the Nazis and communists were in the 1930s, are capable of unification," Woolsey said, according to The Jerusalem Post.
end quote
Waiting is 1930's stupidity. The West should
have attacked Hitler early, when Soviets wanted to be on our side, instead of waiting until the shock of theh 1939 pact. That was revealed when they attacked Poland together. Up to that day, the West didn't know of the secret deal. Remember and act.
Old Atlantic: Iran ALREADY HAS formed an alliance with China, Russia, and North Korea. And now it has done so with Venezuela (and possibly Ecuador and Cuba) in the western hemisphere.
You're a touch behind the times with regards to this particular issue.
the Goobs:
I am in full agreement with your observation on how US automakers obstruct critical technological progress in America with regards to energy conservation.
And now (!) the Ford Motor Company is blubbering about its "worst quarter ever."
Well, duh! With all the million$ US CEOs rake in, isn't it odd that they are totally at a loss when it comes time for them to "connect the dots."
US shareholders in Ford should ask for their money back!!
Now is not the time to be timid or sniveling about "human rights" for an enemy that doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Posted by: A.I. Steamroller
Concise and to the point. I couldn't agree more with your assesment. Let's give them their ticket to that great whorehouse in the sky they so long for. There shouldn't be any complaints from fellow muzzies as they have already stated they love death more than life. By these primoids own standards, we would be doing them a tremendous favor.
Posted by: TexasInfidel at January 24, 2007 07:31 PM
Thanks, TexasInfidel. My way not be POLITICALLY CORRECT but it is none the less CORRECT.