So says the Russian News & Information Agency Novosti (thanks to Davida):
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday."The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
"Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders,"
....probably just observing the surge activity aimed at stopping the flow of weapons and material and "diplomats" flowing from Iran into Iraq...
I hope they are right
Hopefully that means an air offensive. I am all for that. Only use ground forces if Iranian ground forces are near enough to the border be engaged. They should bomb the Iranian military back into the stone age. The military industry and industrial complex in general should eliminated. Keep it up for as long as it it takes. If that means 6 month of attacks so be it.
We need to draft 2 million men and invade Iran, estalish secure supply to Afghanistan, surround and blockade Pakistan and make Pakistan denuke, desub, demissile and deLaden.
We don't need aircraft carriers on fire and sinking from Iran's Russian made anti-ship missiles. Neither Iran nor Russia thinks we will attack Iran with carriers in the Gulf to be sunk in retaliation.
Ground Invasion of Iran Cuts the Gordian Knot of Retaliation
re Thomas Holsinger on “The Case for Invading Iran”
All Russian propaganda. The Ruskies once again are fomenting against the USA in the ME. They owe us one for the failed Russian Afghan affair in the 80's.
"Neither Iran nor Russia thinks we will attack Iran ...."
....wishful thinking on their part....
We need to consider our risk. A Nimitz class carrier has over 5000 on board. Losing one with all lives would cost more than a ground invasion would during the combat phase.
We lost 177 or so killed, US and UK in the Iraq ground combat phase. If we lost 10 times this, 1776 to make it memorable, we would lose less than an aircraft carrier going down with all lives lost.
Iran has subs and anti-ship missiles. They will want to retaliate. They will attack us because in their internal world they lose face not to. In addition, if we won't invade, what more do they lose by retaliation? We already are going to bomb many targets.
We should pull out our ships, and invade down the north coast of the Persian Gulf clearing out their ability to attack ships.
If we do a missile attack, when are we safe from retaliation? When would the Persian Gulf be safe for shipping? When could we lower our troop levels in Iraq?
As soon as we let down our guard, they can attack. So we would have to maintain sufficient forces there to deal with an attack. That would mean for as many years as since 1979 perhaps, e.g. over 20 years we have to keep enough troops and ships there to deal with any attack.
A ground invasion dominates a missile attack because we limit their ability to attack us and impose casualties. We lose fewer lives in a ground invasion than in their retaliation at some time of their choosing on our ships or troops.
This is why they think we are bluffing. They have done the same analysis. To get out of this box, we would need to do a draft of at least 1 million men and likely 2 million or more. Bush is too weak to do that now, and lacked the inspiration to do it after 9-11 when he could have.
Many have discovered, and many are fond of quoting, that passage in Churchill's "The River Wars" that describes the Mohammedan frenzy and fanaticism, and notes that "were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
What does this mean? It means that though Infidels in the advanced West naturally lack the fanatical fighting spirit of the True Believer in Islam, with his frenzied fanaticism, because we lack the habit of mental submission, and encourage the habit of mental freedom, and of free and skeptical inquiry that make possible the science that, in turn, makes possible the military technology, we are "sheltered in the srong arms of science" without which "the civilization of modern Europe" (and by extension, its children in North America, Australia, Israel, and even places further afield culturally, such as Japan) "might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Of course Iran's nuclear project must be so severely damaged, and those involved in it, removed, that it cannot be easily revived. But this should be done with missiles, and rockets, and by use of drones and spy-satellites, not by clunk-clunk-clunk troops crossing into Iran from Iraq (and one can not expect anyone including of course the Shi'a Arabs in Iraq, to be anything but hostile -- save for the local Kurds, who have their own good reasons for wishing to see Iran weakened).
This does not require that crazed idea, a land invasion of which, at this point, the American military is not capable. It is crazed for someone above to suggest the sending of "2 million men." Who would draft them? Under what law passed by what Congress? Such silly remarks only get in the way, and unduly alarm those who, if they could be assured that this would be minimally invasive surgery, would be willing to support it.
The Americans have, and have been paying hundreds of billions yearly to acquire, technological superiority in weaponry. It is important to prevent Iran, or any Muslim state, either from acquiring, or acquiring the ability to deliver (see Pakistan), weapons of mass destruction. Any regime, any country -- if Muslim. That's it, bleakly put so all can understand.
Where are those missiles, those bombers, those expensive implements of war? We want our money's worth. We deserve protection. We have had quite enough of the nonsensical Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. The Shi'a have now been given Iraq. And they can keep Iran. No need for expending effort on "regime change" -- besides, any new regime in Iran, no matter who is in charge, cannot be allowed to continue that weapons project. But Iran can't have those nuclear weapons. It needn't be thoroughly dismembered, for a Shi'a threat to the Sunnis is a Good Thing. But that weapons project, not by land but by air and sea, must be put paid to: the special invoice is long past due. And Tarbaby Iraq must not get in the way of doing what should be done.
The thing about having large opposing military forces next to each other is that mistakes happen, especially when weapons can be released by a nutty Muslim pressing buttons that launch anti-ship missiles. World War I escalated because of the advance planning and decision-making process involved in deploying troops by rail. What used to take weeks in the 1800s took days in 1914, and what started couldn’t be stopped once it got going. We’ve got that decision feedback loop down to seconds in 2007.
Here’s a link for people who question the need for securing a regional airbase in New Kurdistan:
http://www.articlediscovery.com/blog/2007/03/26/iran-may-have-aircraft-carrier-destroying-missile/
Russian intelligence forgot to mention that Iran has had a build-up of Iranian military and infiltration on the Iraqi border.
And the Russians forgot to mention that they have been shipping Russian made arms to Iran in this build-up.
What is that about a splinter in your eye, when I have a beam in mine?
from pez's link....
The Sizzler is a weapon that the US Navy has known about for six years but still has not developed a proven defense system to counter the threat.
probly IS a bad @ss weapon,but we've known about it for 6 years,withought developing a defense for it?come on....
we need a mass call up here in the USA and in the UK.
Pez's comments illustrate why the missile attack advocated by Hugh has risks. These risks are greater than those of a ground invasion. The lack of means to defeat them on the ground would indicate a large risk not to have such means before attacking them.
In addition, a missile strike may not work. It will also deliver not victory but a difficult situation. If we defeat Iran quickly, i.e. ground invasion, it will be accepted. If Iran is still there with mullahs in charge, other players will at best hesitate and possibly advocate for Iran.
This is why players in the region made clear to Bush Jr. they wanted any war to be decisive in regime change in Iraq. The same applies even more so with Iran. If our plan is to remove the regime quickly we will get more support than if we don't.
In WWI we had 200,000 men in April 1917, and in May 1918 we had 1 million in France and 2 million total. By Nov 1918 we had 2 million in France and 4 million total. We won against the German Army of WWI.
If we want a military solution, then this is the model to follow, the quick mobilization and victory that we had in WWI from a much weaker start.
US Army Mobilization WWI from 0.2 to Victory 19mo
quote
” World War I
The United States entered World War I almost completely unprepared: the National Defense Act which Congress had passed in 1916 had provided the basis of a mobilization plan, not an actual army. In early 1917 the country had only 210,000 men under arms, a third of them National Guardsmen who had been called up the previous summer to serve on the Mexican border. The Army had no permanent tactical organization above the level of the regiment and lacked adequate quantities of artillery, machine guns, tanks, modern aircraft, and even gas masks. Its General Staff organization was not designed to cope with the logistical and operational problems presented by a major conflict, and at the direction of the Wilson administration it had made no war plans. The Army had no intelligence organization.
Within seventeen months, however, the country had transformed itself into a fighting machine. With the help of the draft, the United States raised an Army of 4 million men; half of this great force was transported to France, where it provided the decisive margin that led to victory over Imperial Germany and its allies.”
end quote
See above link for link to army.mil source of the quote.
"And Tarbaby Iraq must not get in the way of doing what should be done."
...Amen, brother....
Carriers are vulnerable to submarines, especially when they don’t have the freedom of the open ocean to use their speed. We never used to operate carriers in the Gulf because of the then-credible Russian threat. Those fancy missiles would be applicable in open water. You just need a torpedo in the Gulf.
This is a really, really bad time to be an Iranian submariner.
"...players in the region made clear to Bush Jr. they wanted any war to be decisive in regime change in Iraq. The same applies even more so with Iran."
-- from a posting above
What "players in the region" made this "clear" to Bush that "they wanted any war to be decisive"? Surely the Americans didn't have to be told that by any so-called "players" (a peculiar term) "in the region." The only "player" that would really have counted, the only one that was kept fully informed because it even had its own egregious ambassador being allowed into supposedly secret planning sessions (no non-Americans supposed to be there) was Saudi Arabia, and Prince Bandar. And imagine just how surprised Saudi Arabia turned out to be, not at the removal of Saddam Hussein (from the Saudi point of view, that removed a threat), but at the most unexpected, and disturbing realization that Bush was promoting all this "freedom" and "democracy" stuff because he had no idea that Iraq, in the Saudi view, belonged permanently to its Sunni Arab masters. Were they horrified to discover their naive friend believed in that stuff, and that he actually thought that if the Shi'a Arabs had the votes, they should be allowed to take powere. Surprise!
As for Iran, the humiliation for the regime of having its much-cherished nuclear project destroyed or severely damaged (and one attack doesn't mean there can't be others, like a booster shot of polio, or diptheria-tetanus vaccine) is plenty. If, in flailing out, the regime decides to really go after the Sunnis in Iraq, that's just fine - isn't it? So one wishes to destroy the nuclear project, but not -- at this point -- dismember Iran. For it still has a valuable role to play, as a continuing threat to the Sunni Arabs. One wants Iran able to play that role as paladin of Shi'a Islam, against the Sunnis, with its accustomed ferocity and fanaticism and panache.
You will all hear my cheer all the way from Texas the minute I get word of an assault of any kind upon Iran's Islamofascist regime and its nuclear ambitions. I have forecast this attack now since shortly after the move into Iraq.
As much as I like being right, I prefer that the United States simply demonstrate that it has the right and the will to defend its soldiers. The Iranians are fueling the misery in Iraq and need to pay the piper.
Clang!
I'd love to know what our acronomical (I can make up words, too) agencies are reading out of Russia--especially traffic with Iran.
We sent a 2nd carrier group to the gulf--when? We decided to do major exercises--when?
Now I have to ask--does old atlantic have a clue about what a Carrier Group (If you've ever seen one you know it's awesome enough to deserve capitals) looks like?
Let me try. It's a floating airbase/city that was created to project airpower almost anywhere on Earth. It is the greatest offensive naval asset (excluding the boomers which are quite literally doomsday to any city-state that pisses us off enough) for conventional warfighting. But it is crap for defense. Hence the Group.
Carriers are the most expensive tool in our arsenal so we ring them with Aegis equipped surface ships. The response and speed of the Aegis system is amazing. No missile gets through.
Beneath the surface are always at least two fast attack boats.
These are the tangible assets. The intangible assets include a redundant hardened network that keeps every element in a state of virtually instant communication and Response. If a radar on one ship sees an incoming threat multiple Aegis systems on multiple ships go into action in less than one second.
Satellite and AWACS can detect over-the-horizon threats and the Group can respond in kind.
When we stage an exercise like this we can go from cold to hot in a very short time. The exercise may be timed to intimidate--but it's no empty threat.
We have the symmetrical part of this licked. Coordinated Tomahawk and Stealth for the inital softening followed by deeper and deeper penetration as our HARMs take out fixed and mobile SAM sites. Targeted heavy bombing of C & C to follow, then make the fellows running the weaps facilities have a very bad day.
This one needs to be bombed until the regime is changed. Following the wreckage of Iranian military, we move on to industrial targets including oil transport.
And we shouldn't go in to help repair anything until there's a very friendly central government that asks us real nice.
Why do this?
In terms of striking Iran (ignoring the current British situation - I will comment elsewhere), there is only one point, and that is to degrade and reduce their nuclear facilities - set them back. That is all. Israel would like to do this.
If there is another point - what would that be?
The downside to doing this is:
It is likely to unite Muslims - so lets not.
The right option is to leave Iraq, prompto.
Then at that point, Saudi Arabia and others will start having to expend resources against the Shias. Weakens Islam. Iran is not that bad in terms of military forces. But it would still have a quite a fight against all the Sunni's.
The way I see it, civil war with Iraq as a battleground looks a certainty.
Right now, we are in the way. So lets get out.
I dont give a damn about saving Bush & Blair's faces. Their politicians - they can always dress their actions up in a nice speech.
turn makes us sound invincible, something none of us who sail in harm's way would assert, but I assure you of this--if we were afeared of losing one of our ten carriers in the PG, it wouldn't be there. As has been repeatedly noted, this will be a Navy and Air Force campaign, with the Army in a supporting role only (think Spec Ops).
As for our friends, the Russians, well, I have nothing good to say, and Mama always said, if you don't have anything good to say...
Actually attacking Iran would yield surprising results if I had to guess. Surprising to the positive.
And if they were actually stupid enough to set something off in bilad al-kufr then that would be their end.
The sooner the mullahs fall the better. Enough of them actually believe the propaganda to push it. Give them what they ask for.
Why do this?
Because Iran is the one member of the Axis that has wealth (O.K.-- N.K. PRINTS a lot of money) and it's finishing it's third decade as the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism. Because the regime in Iran props up Syria and finances Hizbollah.
Because we have hundreds of thousands of Iranian expats that are educated and wealthy and would return and contribute to society there and lead if they could. Because a Western-friendly Iran with its relatively secular society would be as good or better than the corrrupt fanatics that seized power in 1979 in acting as a buffer to radical sunnis.
Decause quite a few of the people of Iran have asked us to. And because some of the people of Iran have been ASKING FOR IT!
Because we have hundreds of thousands of Iranian expats that are educated and wealthy and would return and contribute to society there and lead if they could. Because a Western-friendly Iran with its relatively secular society would be as good or better than the corrrupt fanatics that seized power in 1979 in acting as a buffer to radical sunnis.
Decause quite a few of the people of Iran have asked us to. And because some of the people of Iran have been ASKING FOR IT!
Posted by: turn at March 28, 2007 03:42 PM
Oh, but Turn, that sounds a lot like the buildup hype used as the rationale to the Iraq war. Let's hope its true this time.
Longtime--never meant to suggest we're invincible. Not even invulnerable, but we've gotten very good indeed at minimizing our Achilles Heel.
Talk about "always fighting the previous war" I was attempting to update the old gent that thinks we need to fight like WWI.
Take it you were silent for quite some time. Thanks, Bro.
quote
What "players in the region" made this "clear" to Bush that "they wanted any war to be decisive"? Surely the Americans didn't have to be told that by any so-called "players" (a peculiar term) "in the region." The only "player" that would really have counted, the only one that was kept fully informed because it even had its own egregious ambassador being allowed into supposedly secret planning sessions (no non-Americans supposed to be there) was Saudi Arabia, and Prince Bandar.
end quote
from Hugh above
I am not sure, but I believe I heard prince Bandar himself say he had made that clear to Bush on some TV program.
Turn,
What is the probability, in your view, that a Russian anti-ship missile could hit a US carrier?
Turn:
Decause quite a few of the people of Iran have asked us to. And because some of the people of Iran have been ASKING FOR IT!
Your not using your head Turn.
We can get the whole Middle East blazing just by pulling out (and maybe carefully supplying arms to the right people).
Right now, a major civil was between Sunni and Shia looks distinctly possibly. Shits have long term greviences against Sunni - lets use that.
Saudi Arabia has said it will support minority Sunni in Iraq if USA & UK pull out.
If Iran had to fight all the Sunni, it would have its hands full. As it stands Iran already has a minority Sunni population of its own - living near its oil wells.
And it is great hearing Arabs and Persians fight.
Lengthy curses about the size of mustaches (Sigmund Freud would knowingly understand the imagery).
fedup
"Buildup hype"?
That intel was so solid I believe it still today.
Prior to '79, Iran looked like most Western countries. Mores were not islamist and it was quite secular.
In some ways the Iranian revolution is comparable to the Soviet. Middle and upper class citizens not connected to the new regime beat feet for the US and Europe (where they've done quite well). Another point of similarity is that for a while, the average geezer was a true believer but, as in the USSR, it wasn't long before the blush was off the rose.
The buildup hype I was referring to was what we heard from the Iraq expats and exiles, such as Chalibi, etc. "We will be greeted as liberators", "they will love us", etc, to the extent that it blinded our pols to the possibility that we could be there for five years, with little progress made in stopping the hate. Yes, Iran needs to be dealt with. Hopefully we have learned some lessons as to the futility of trying to win these peoples hearts and minds. I don't think these people (muslims) have either.
U K infidel lover
So you're advocating a strategy that leaves the mullahs in power but sets up regional Shi'ia/Sunni war? To involve the Saudis and the Iranians and all their proxies to just duke it out amongst themselves so we don't have to dirty our hands? Just destabilize the lot?
Listen:this is all about getting that particular region to settle down long enough so that we can get the life's blood of our civilization long enough to figure out what will fuel it next.
Bush believes that democratic reform will effect that change. It has a chance to work but there are forces trying to make it fail. Aside from al q'aeda the mullahs are the other bad actors here.
Hence regime change. We always knew we'd have to, didn't we?
Hmmm...
Seems to me that
1. The Russian "intelligence" is more projective here-say than hard fact. Like reading one of those "there are alien bases on the Moon, and the US government is hugely covering it up" pieces. Russian "intelligence" is almost always 10% fact and 90% fabrication.
2. Even if there is a buildup of US forces along the border of Iraq and Iran, it makes sense from a strategic point of view: cut the arms, cut the insurgency, cut OFF the trade and flow of monies, products, terrorists, families. Essentially, deal unto Iran what the UN Sanctions dare not.
3. Even if we're there for more tactically offensive future reasons, then it doesn't imply that such a ground force is poised to actually execute a phalanx attack on Iran. Iran, unlike Iraq, is a big country that is rugged, well populated, complex. Iraq is too - but 75% of it is a big nearly flat dessert, and just about everyone lives on the Tigris and Euphrates riverine system.
4. But even if we go one step further, per the Russians (and Europeans, and American Left, and world Journalists, and House and Senate Democrats, and every last anti-American military strategist) ... and buy into the trip that the addition of a carrier group, the bucking up of Iran:Iraq border forces, the repositioning of materiel and personnel is leading to a confrontation, why do we assume that it is going to be a "big one"?
From #4, and all that exists over yon, it seems to me that the United States really would prefer Iran to "show its hand". Iraq played its tape recorder of vast munitions and capacity, it trumpeted to the world (but mostly local) audience its invulnerability, and the stupidity of pitting the US against its military strength. It predicted a bloodbath, a crushing defeat of America, it predicted all sorts of things. Funny thing.
But in the end, Iraq only threatened with words, with suspicious activities, with posturing and balderdash. We went it, kicked their butts in the most speedy takeover of a sizeable country in the history of War, instituted a consensual democracy, committed - and delivered - the rebuilding of their infrastructure, rounded up their vermin, ferreted out their despot, and handed him over to local authority for justice. We're taking casualties, but the war was WON.
Now Iran is posturing. They're proud of their uranium enrichment facilities. They should be! It ain't easy, and if anyone has been tracking the uranium spot market, there's a bunch of money to be made supplying power-plant grade fuel to the 440 world reactors. Like the Iraqis prior to their despot's overthrow, the Iranians are posturing, shooting off laughable fireworks and calling them "missiles". They have noisy U-Boats that our submariners say can be heard 50 miles away, chugging through the mire. They don't have a credible navy, they don't have a credible air force. They do have some nasty Russian missiles, and some even nastier Chinese versions. We must assume that they'll try to use them in a conflict.
But in that, I think they're underpowered. We have batteries of anti-missile missiles, we have the Phalanx ASM system, we have airborne fuel tankers, tens of thousands of primed troops, scores of top-of-the-line planes. Our intelligence has become local and thus amazingly accurate and credible. Thousands of our GIs are engaged in tracking by radar and satellite hundreds of thousands of 'objects of interest' in Iran. What do they have? Binoculars and Google Earth.
No, the Iranians know full well that they are beaten before they have begun. If they "show their hand" (blowing up a nuke, or something equally provocative), they know that the US will have a weak, but undeniable Cassus Bellae - which will mean that the US wouldn't send in massive forces, but just the opposite - massive air strikes, pinpointed to simultaneously take out their communications infrastructure, their power infrastructure, their military capability, their manufacturing, civic, infrastructural and transportation segments. In fact, with a little careful planning, all the bombs could explode nearly simultaneously.
The Iranians have gotten themselves into a hard place: should they desist in their rhetoric, the government of Ahmadinejad falls, the Mullahs have big egg on the face, the youth of the country will revolt. If they do continue and push the envelope to bursting diplomatically, then they will suffer the other consequence: financial ruin and extreme hardship. Again the bureaucracy fails.
However, if they manage to both keep a lid on their proceedings, they manage to match the will of the West, they begin to "sell the uranium" to the world market (thus profoundly substantiating their claim that they're doing it for a profit), then Ahmadinejad will "kind of win" internally. The people in the EU and UN who fundamentally believe that Iran's intentions are good will rise, diplomatic resumption will return, sanctions will be lifted, the economy will get back on track, and the gerentocracy will gradually lose power.
the point though is, at what cost? I see next to no downside for their continued course: so long as they don't show their hand, they do begin international uranium fuel shipments, they desist in sending insurgents into Iraq, and they keep pounding on the world body to buy their stuff and believe in their sovereign position ... well, they will become the powerhouse of the region, no doubt.
So I ask myself, "do we want to provoke them into being stupid, revealing their secrets, or posturing so obtructively that we HAVE to take action?"
I think the answer to that is wrapped in our real intelligence as to how far along they are in nuclear development - especially toward a KhanBomb.
Israel rightly is concerned. America is rightly concerned that Israel is concerned. Europe appears ostensibly to be concerned. It is time for Iran to either show the world their reasonable goals, or to make a big mistake.
As I said last night at the round table ... "Bring it on!"
Fair point fedup.
We get the news of how bad it is like chinese water torture. Most of these people (Iraqis) just want to get through the day and see their kids grow up.
Foreign fighters, former Baathists, and Iranian and Iranian-backed actors have been very successful in their efforts to hamstring any progress in Iraq.
Initially we were greeted positively by most. Some, the Kurds, almost love us. Most of the rest are just hunkering down now.
Let the Army and Marines surge in Iraq. That leaves Navy and Air for Iran,
Turn:
So you're advocating a strategy that leaves the mullahs in power but sets up regional Shi'ia/Sunni war? To involve the Saudis and the Iranians and all their proxies to just duke it out amongst themselves so we don't have to dirty our hands? Just destabilize the lot?
Yup that is it.
Listen:this is all about getting that particular region to settle down long enough so that we can get the life's blood of our civilization long enough to figure out what will fuel it next.
So? There are other places to get life's blood from:
Nigeria, Russia, Canada (tar sand), other African States, Venezuela (yes Hugo is a pain but I believe he is still selling).
Regardless - the entire West needs to become super-super-efficient with energy. We all need to drive the equivalent of Prius's.
Bush believes that democratic reform will effect that change. Hence regime change. We always knew we'd have to, didn't we?
No chance, absolutely no chance.
Bush has not appreciated just how strong Islam's hold is on that region in the world.
Bush believes democracy is compatible with Islam - the evidence is it is not.
Have you noticed how few of the OIC countries have a working democracy? Even within Turkey, there are forces to Islamise the country.
Iran - complex country. The young are "sick" of strict Islam. But not so sick that they will throw it off.
If Bush tries the direct approach - it will backfire. And it cannot be said that his Iraq plans have been a success, can it?
On Afghanistan - I hope Bush and Blair are planning on staying there a 1000 years. Because regardless how many Taliban you kill - there will be others to replace them - and it will neverending. There is no such thing as "winning"
Eventually some Western Governments will pull out to cut their losses.
Views on whether the US can handle the Sunburn anti-ship missile below.
How U.S. Helped Russia Improve Deadly Missiles
Charles R. Smith
Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2001
Search
Russian anti ship missile
Rense on Sunburn
Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missle threat neutralized...
Cheating a little. I posted this on the later thread re Turney's appearance.
______________________________
Flashback 30 years.
On the streets of Teheran you see men and women going about their business in Western clothing.
Occasionally you see a woman with a scarf--but not as a rule. In fact, Paris fashions are the rage among those that can afford them.
You are likely to see women picking their kids up from school and driving them to soccer or tennis or music lessons.
You can step into a bar and have a beer with a local.
Only in some neighborhoods do you hear a call to prayer.
Ditto L.A. today.
____________________________
I'm stunned by the naivete. Comparing Iranian mores and customs to the Taliban (or Saudi). Shame.
Blame the mullahs. Most of the people of Iran would love to go back to the times before '79, before Khomeini. When they could travel the world freely and women had a level of equality comparable to the West.
Most want that secular life back. They were a prosperous nation and lived like it.
It may seem like it sometimes, but the entire Islamic world is not like the rough parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. And not as strict as the wahabbists would have it.
U K infidel lover--You, as I, live and love nations that have suffered grievously from jihadi attacks. You have proportionally a much greater number of the insane variety that are easily led into radical Islam. I'm betting, though, that an infinitesimally few would describe themselves as being of Persian background. They have too much pride to swim in that crap.
It's the mullahs.
Drive a Prius? Hurrumph.
I know how to bring Iran to its knees with minimal US cost, but I don't have the football.
"Neither Iran nor Russia thinks we will attack Iran ...."
....wishful thinking on their part....xsgtbrown
Saddam also never thought the US would actually attack Iraq. he had eight years of Clinton, so thought the same old same in the US, he saw too many clips of "BlackHawk down" and just assumed the AMerican would never attack again.
As bad as Iraq is, It is still a State with defined Borders. Recognised by the UN. Any Iranian Incursion into Iraq would be an act of War.
Vigorous Guarding of that Border is in Iraq's best interest. That is what we are their for. The Iraq Army, police and everyone else were meant to deal with "domestic" issues. Now everyone with a Gun or bomb, are all engaged with killing each other. I don't think they are bound to miss us as we head to the Border.
The Ground forces will establish kill zones and do what the term means.
It has been in the long term Interest of the US, since 1979, to remove, once again, the government of Iran.
Every word that has ever been spoken by that Country, should send chills down the spine of every AMERICAN.
Everything they said they felt, they acted on. True to their word, they stayed the course and did what they did. To the point where what they always said, today holds itself exposed to the full light of Day.
After years of cultivation, they feel the Tree will Bear the Bitter Fruit they desire.
Honestly, long term, Nuclear Power for Iran would be a wise long term energy supply.
Thinking that Iran, under it its current form of lifestyle, will do anything else but make a Bomb.
suffers from a unique form of mental disorder. As unique as blowing up your own people to win a War.
The Leadership of Iran needs to go. We can only do so much. The Kids need to do the rest.
It is up to the Kids if they wish to implode like Iraq. Personally I don't care.
It is them or US at this point in time.
US sounds so much better.
Minimal Cost, to US that is.
If they wish to minimize the Century's of their descent, they better speak up and be quick about it. I don't believe it, any more than I did 5 years, or 10,15, 20, 25 years ago.
Sorry, tour parents lead you to this point. But what did you expect. Tell someone you want to kill them and they won't finally get fed up with it.
There are better indicators than what the Russians are talking about.
I wouldn't expect that the strikes will end anytime soon.
Wouldn't want to be a Captain of a Tanker.
Details Manning the Rails, in Hunt of Small Boats and Planes.
This idea of a "US Invasion of Iran" will never happen, at least in the foreseeable future. The merits of the idea are flimsy at best.
If the US had wanted to deal with Iran, they should have used the excuse that was provided to them by the Iranians in 79. That was when "we should have taken care of all the family business".
Hey Pez,
Ooh, We are really scared that the Iranian Navy is going to sink our carriers... yeah right.
Your thinly veiled threats amount to nothing... less than nothing with people like me.
Moody Iminamoodforjihad will sink into the dust bins of history along with every other fascist lunatic. If you want to sink with him that is your business.
Those wishing for an attack... are you prepared for the consequences...among which will be $5/gal gasoline for the long term? That is just one that affects you/us directly. However...delay until they have the bomb is tempting fate. I do not belive we can count on Pakistan being a friendly nuke power for much longer and if they go...OBL and friends will avail themselves of what they wish to have for us. It is a deadly game being played.
Thats what i have meant all along "use the un manned aircraft".
When in rome do as the romans do.In this case the little jihad tactics used by hezbola and hammas and fatah....IRAN.
Isn't it these pukes that feel it's perfectly okay and NOT a cause for full scale war by lobbing missiles here and there?
Well we could just up that anti with unmanned aircraft and select all the prime targets we desire.
Of course something would have to be done with our troops in the line of thier fire and no trustworthy protection at thier backs.
If there is nothing for them to aim at but missiles falling on them WHAT ARE THEY GOONA DO?
We have unmanned aircraft that can fly higher than any manned aircraft and so does Israel.
Islam is surrounded i am telling you.You don't beat on people and beat on people and beat on people and not expect them to act when they get the opprotunity.It would be nice if these people saw a great chance to sign on and rid themselves of this disease.Meanwhile all the talk for peace just adds to the greenhouse affect.It's senseless.useless and fleeting.The only time it would be of any worth is for the groveling of the hoity toities that have sent all thier people to thier doom for nothing.
Take out them republican guard pieces of crap from the wild blue yonder.
and all that jazz.
For all the Warmongers on this post: No the US is not going to attack Iran or its nuclear site or launch a ground invasion or in any way attack Iran. That would just be plain stupid. Its not going to happen so forget that scenario please. Thank you.