I'd like to see the cartoons of this!

"Mahmoud and the Pirates Meet the Predator Drone"?

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 12, 2006 1:36 AM

Profitsbeard, my friend,

Watch your back around Raynor.

And have a good night.

Isabella

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 12, 2006 1:44 AM

Watch your back around Raynor.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

Raynor, your leftists leanings have been exposed. You just can't demean the Christians and get away with it any more. You need to join a good right wing organization like the Baptists or the Church of Christ. You get the drift.

As to Iran, a few strategic nukes would also work wonders.

It starting to look a lot like war.

The Texican,

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at February 12, 2006 1:54 AM

It is starting to look like a war. When it comes, it will be swift and devastating. We will finally see the "Shock and Awe" we were promised several years ago.

Posted by: McSeamus at February 12, 2006 2:08 AM

The only real question now is, how do we keep the Persian Gulf clear of sunken Iranian naval vessels?. This Ahmadinejad seems hell-bent on starting a fight. And the Iranian "president" is supposed to show the PEACEFUL face to the infidels. You think they would be smart enough to wait until Bush is out of office..

Posted by: Sentinel at February 12, 2006 2:12 AM

Sure!
Put it in the Newspapers and make sure every Tom Dick and Harry knows about it and Peanut Carter, Blowjob Clinton and Cliffhanger Kennedy and every anti-war looney cage-rattler can talk it to death before it happens!

How stupid is that?!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 12, 2006 2:30 AM

Sentinel-

I hope we have taken that into aacount. Sink the ships in their ports and tie up their economy at the same time. Sink the others in deep water if possible, or use daisycutters to clear the wreakage, most likely killing many innocent dolphins though. The animal rights activists would get upset...and then we would have to send in american troops to do the job.

Posted by: McSeamus at February 12, 2006 2:37 AM

If you have done any reading about the Iraq Iran war, you would know that Iran employed a human wave strategy. They would send a huge contingent of men, of which about one third were armed. As the soldiers in the front were killed, the back of the wave that were unarmed would pick up the gun and continue running in.

Much of the war was fought in the river and swampy delta land. The Iraqi's had the technological advantage. If they knew that the Irani's were coming they would string heavy electrical wires through the water or swamp, the Iranis would come and they would pull the switch and fry them. Then they would collect the bodies and bind them with wire and use them as human building blocks and bridges to drive the heavy equipment throught the swamps.

The Iranian army is a joke, but they are determined and are willing to take huge losses. Thus they were able to fight a modern world war I type trench war to a standoff against the best army in the region. I fear that the only way to dispatch them quickly is a nuclear war. We would then need to keep Pakistan out of it. If you think a bunch of cartoons were bad, just wait until you drop the big one on Iran. There will be Hell to pay. Maybe the Ayotolla Khomeni was the anti-christ.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at February 12, 2006 2:39 AM

Nice trial balloon, and a very serious one.

I like the way the Administration floats this on a weekend in London. Gives them an early look at reaction overseas during a weekend, so some additional PR planning can be done before the local press starts asking lots of questions.

I have always admired the way Bush & Co are playing chess, while everyone else is playing checkers.

The reference to submarines is interesting. It reminds our public and the Iranians that, yes, indeed, we do have some strategic submarines thanks to some forward thinking years ago. (Like good capitalists, we substitute capital for labor even in warfare.) Second, it is a reminder to Iran that we have a Triad of capability (land based missiles, aircraft, and submarines). Finally, it suggests to the Iranians that we are aware that they, too, have submarines AND we have thought about them, AND we know where they are, AND we will take them out instantly if need be. Iran has a fleet, but it is not quiet enough to avoid detection.

Frankly, I think the administration should wait about a month, to give Iran enough time to do an about-face on the nuclear processing issue. Then, if Iran hasn't backed down, they should just torpedo one Iranian sub. Take it out. Not say anything. Let the Iranians wonder if it was killed or just lost to accident. If it is done early in a sub's tour of duty, not even a talkative sailor would be able to spoil the secret for several months.

This Iranian regime has to be confronted sooner or later. Better to work them over now, before they can do much about it.

Posted by: texan at February 12, 2006 2:40 AM

The Iranians know all about this already and are probably moving illegalities out of harms way, and preparing to counter attack.
I think the reason that the beasty boy in Iran is deliberatly escalating tensions, is because he is expecting Mahdi to appear at any moment.
I dont believe that Mahdi is any kind of supernatural being, but beasty boy and his fellow beastonians do. I also think, as I have already stated, that lacking the appearance of a supernatural Mahdi, one will be appointed. A great show will be put on for the folks to establish his credibility. A song and dance routine. That might be entertaining, but the rest of it is dangerous...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 12, 2006 2:41 AM

I guess Iran is getting seriously nervous, to be rattling the saber like this... The only thing that worries me is, how dumb of an opening move are the Mullahs willing to make? All I know is, Iran fought Iraq for 8 years not too long ago, and got their asses handed to them. The U.S. and its allies captured Baghdad in 3 weeks. Deep down, the Mullahs MUST realize this simple fact.

Posted by: Sentinel at February 12, 2006 2:55 AM

Yep...That's what I'm sayin!

Posted by: McSeamus at February 12, 2006 3:01 AM

The problem with even the least dhimmified strategy of the west, is that it mostly creates short-term strategic benefits. For instance if the west would have helped israel get the sinai, i dont belive the nuclear option would be as attractive to the islamists as it is today (due to the larger area, and population capacity).

If the west would create a kurdish state in northern iraq, and preferably two separate states for the turkomens (in order to get turkey on board) and the christian assyrians (the most indigenous people left in iraq), we would get long term allies in the middle east. If we would like to solve the israeli-arab conflict we could give jordans king abdulla half of the west bank, the other half to israel and abullah would also be given the sunni belt of iraq. A win win situation. Israel gets bigger, jordan gets bigger and all the sunnis can live in a large state with a clear majority of sunnis!.

Posted by: moz_art at February 12, 2006 4:45 AM

I can hope this does Not come to war. However: When we went into Iraq in '91, the Iraqi air force Ran for Iran, or a good bit of them did... seeing how the great majority of Iranians do Not want the government they got, can we hope that a good number of Iranian pilots would do the same?

And- Is anyone keeping track of Pentagon pizza orders?

Posted by: Gary at February 12, 2006 5:55 AM

small point - why are we letting the Iranians KNOW that we're preparing for a strike?

or is the leaking of such info part of the sabre rattling , in terms of applying pressure on the Iranians?

Posted by: archduke at February 12, 2006 6:42 AM

"small point - why are we letting the Iranians KNOW that we're preparing for a strike?"

Enemies make mistakes when they are nervous. Activity in and around the sites increases, careless phone calls are made, military hardware is moved around, scientists and other personnel get the hell out of Dodge - all the stuff that can be monitored.

Posted by: 1630r at February 12, 2006 7:04 AM

The sad part is that most Iranians do NOT support
the Mad Mullahs.

Forget the nuclear option > cut the head off the
snake. A couple of stealth bombers and laser guided bunker busters can toast the Mad Mullahs.

My hats off to the Defense Dept in develping
stealth technology. It was originally developed
to counter Russian radar during the Cold War, but
the benefits as a strategic option in the Middle East is enormous.

Posted by: learjet0450 at February 12, 2006 8:42 AM

When the Iranians threaten the West with cutting off oil shipments in response to our pressure, we should be prepared to call their bluff by wrecking their oil production, oil refining, and oil transportation infrastructure.

If the Iranian oil is not flowing, then there won't be money to prop up the mullahs, no money to pay the army, no money for the Iranian "paid demonstrators," no money to feed the religious police, and no money for expensive nuclear projects.

As a bonus, there won't be any excuse for leftist (and Islamic fascist) detractors to claim that we "are just fighting another war for oil."

Posted by: Stendec at February 12, 2006 10:05 AM

The Iranian strategy for defeating the US Navy carrier battle groups is to launch thousands of suicide bomb speed boats at the US fleet. This cheap lo-tech suicide fleet has been under construction for some time. Most will fail but a few will undoubtedly get through, with devastating results (a la USS Cole).

Ultimately this strategy will fail but it will achieve a number of tactical victories that will have symbolic significance that may inspire others like the Indonesians to do the same against shipping lanes that are the conduits for oil to China, Japan, Korea and Singapore, thus bringing the Asian economies to their knees.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at February 12, 2006 10:12 AM

A couple of weeks ago, Hugh wrote a piece arguing that the Iraq fiasco represents an obstacle to an effective military response against Iran. If I recall, Hugh's reasoning was that Amhadinejad had reason to believe that the U.S. could not effectively stop him from building the bomb because they were booged down in Iraq.

The article above is inconsistent with Hugh's argument, because it suggests an effective military response is possible despite the Iraq fiasco. Perhaps Hugh could explain to readers here this inconsistency

Posted by: Filippo_28 at February 12, 2006 10:14 AM

RE: Most will fail but a few will undoubtedly get through, with devastating results (a la USS Cole).

You must not be familiar with the 'Phalance Gatling Gun" that protects carriers. It would
devastate any and all small speed boats.
That is assuming that got past the fighters that
would be launched as soon as the speed boats
were detected by radar.

Carriers have an effective 200 mile protection zone which is why the Tomcat with its sweep wings was developed. Wings forward allows low speed and the Tomcat can launch and track multiple targets at one time.

Also keep in mind the carriers are protected by
the flyings AWACS.

Posted by: learjet0450 at February 12, 2006 11:26 AM

If it comes to war, the President should ask Congress for a formal declaration of war, to silence the backstabbing politicians. Then, the war should be prosecuted with maximum sustained violence until the enemy surrenders, publicly and unconditionally. No more "police actions." No more half measures.

Posted by: Stendec at February 12, 2006 12:05 PM

Stendec, I agree, but there will be at least a few people who will want us to drag it thru the UN, repeatedly, while attack after attack is launched against the US. Then later they can claim Bush did nothing to protect us...

Posted by: Gary at February 12, 2006 12:14 PM

Remember Bush's request for nuclear "bunker busters" several years ago? the intel about Iran's nuke sites buried beyond the capabilities of standard ordinance is well known. Yet the congress insists on hackneyed
cold war excuses for not developing "robust earth penetrators" capable of cooking deep rat holes. They have fallen victim to the clarion trance issued by bed wetting incompetents such as these; http://www.clw.org/2005/10/congress_knocks.html

Posted by: Thumper at February 12, 2006 2:04 PM

Isabella & Texican-

Haven't followed much of Raynor's chit chat, but if it is merely a p.c. method to undermine the Resistance through scattering the attention of those who need to be united (by means of political carping and other irrelevancies), my back is well guarded by a knowledge of Machiavelli.

Thanks for the heads ups.

And I'm hoping Mahmoud and the mad mullahs meet the 12th Madhi real soon.

Preferably between fiery Gehenna and the shades of Dis.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 12, 2006 2:25 PM

A suicide bomb speed boat will be exactly that - suicide for cartoonaphobes. Speedbaoats will be shot like fish in a barrel by the navy. What must really concerns the navy are the hundreds of advanced missiles that Iran has aquired from Russia and China. Remember the devastating effect that the excocet had in the Faulklen Islands war. Remember the Stark. Todays's missiles are far more advanced, and far more deadly. I suspect that may be the reason that the navy is looking at launching cruise missiles from submarines.

Posted by: GFB at February 12, 2006 2:52 PM

While most on this blog dislike Iran, and would love to see "the military option" succeed, the American establishment has been pro Iranian for 26 years. The American people aren't, but every president has done things to help the Iranian regime. It may seem incredible, but please keep it in mind as you read about Iran.
This "leaking" of Top Secret plans is just part of an act.

Posted by: dococ at February 12, 2006 3:22 PM

dococ-

It will be an act up until a warhead- capable of reaching Israel- is literally imminent (two months or 2 years?), then it will just be: Act!

No one will stand by, whatever their realpolitik b.s. says now, and let an ally be vaporized by Mahdi-hungry nutjobs.

It would be bad policy.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 12, 2006 6:00 PM

The work n Pak is that very likely Iran has lready got at least 1 nuke..hence the posturing.

Things could get nasty for all.

Posted by: Naseem at February 12, 2006 6:12 PM

Hi Guys,

I agree to Naseem, that Iran might already have a hand on nuke from Pakistan another rouge state. But what will Iran nuke since it cannot nuke Israel as it knows there will be counter nuclear attack from USA. Now the question comes is whether the one Nuclear bomb if any with Iran does pose any big threat, I think no. But these are fuc.... screwed head Muslims, I can be completely wrong.

Now the big issue is If USA attacks Iran, which it should as soon as possible, why not also attack Pakistan bastards too as they are root cause of Taliban, Al Quaida and Iran possessing Nuclear options.

I vote for USA attacking Pakistan facilities too so that we dont have a problem in future.

Guys tell me who is with me on this??

Posted by: Aman at February 12, 2006 6:55 PM

Aman-

It seems like Pakistan, the home of the "father [actually thief] of the Islamic Bomb" A.Q.Khan, benign beneficiary of "house arrest" for his nuclear proliferation to terror states, is getting the soft approach.

Not that your critique is mistaken about their culpability or potential threat, but until Musharref is replaced by someone on the edge of the Mahdi's mental cliff like Mahoud of Iran, no action will seem "justified" against this nominal "ally".

One pot of lobsters at a time.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 12, 2006 7:42 PM

Hi profitsbeard,

I agree to what you are saying to some extent, but you have to see the real side too. Whether USA wants to wait until Pakistan is also a big problem like Iran and then do something or do now.

Think where is OSAMA projected to be either east Afgansitan or Western Pakistan. Who supported terrorism in Afganistan and Taliban, Answer Pakistan. Who is supporting terrorist activities on name of religion.. Answer Pakistan. Till we dont stop taking narrow approach of dividing issues like terrorism and sayin that this effects USA and this effects the rest of the world and wait till these mad people to strike.
Pakistan is supporting indirectly terrorism in Kashmir and other places in India.

I think that the day is not far when Musharaf will be blown away and the country taken by Mullahs and clerics and we see another IRAN.

We have seen this fanatism for so many years, which the people of western countries ignored for many decades thinking that it is an outcome of developing nations and not religious fundamentalism. More money in hands of these people has lead to more intensive terrorism. They are becoming more and more fanatic every day. I think its time when all democracies of the world unite and take a strong stand against these rouge states.

Posted by: Aman at February 12, 2006 8:37 PM

Thumper you are than total idiot. First there is no nuclear bunker bustering bomb. Any nuclear weapon will denate when it penerate 20 to 25 feets of earth. Iran bunker and factories are built 2000 feet or more down in soild soil and rock.

One time they where talking out useing tac nuke to built cannels and mineing untril they found than any tac nuke would created massive fallout over awide area as they would have to be explode very near the surface too work. For you criminal racist that are so racist against Islam that you cannot think clearly. First the B2 bombers will be shot down and the sub launch missiles will miss they target and hit target in Russia and China and cause problem with those two nations.

Iran have hundred's of nuclear weapons all ready with missile able to reach part of Europe easlies.
Nuclear weapon and missile technology are pretty old technology now. Saudic Arabric have 8000 milies missiles with big themonuclear warhead boughter from China. That why Saudic Arbric isnot afraid of Iran haveing nuclear weapons. Iran nuke are built out of Pu-239 as are Pakistian nuclear weapon use Pu-239 and the technologry to manufactor Pu-239 from North Korea. You can turn small amount of pure U-238 into pure Pu-239 needed for nuclear weapon. Pakistian have nuclear weapon since 1987, they only test they old one.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at February 12, 2006 8:51 PM

DefenderofIslam Correction:
Let’s see ~2000 feet under the ground?
That's equivalent to 600 meters, the bunkers of Iran are estimated to be only tens of meters under ground.

Be assured though that there will be no nuclear jihad - with this ‘nut’ that the Iranians have named President ~ in charge.
________
If the Arabs spent less time on war technology and more time on technologies which improve the life of the people over there - then we would not be having so many troubles.

Under the Taliban, you could not have a TV or a radio, but you could have a gun. What are you defending - when everyone is poor and hungry and broken? It seems clear that plans for the Islamic Utopia failed miserably.

What we are saying to Islam as politely as possible - is that we don't want your religion. The West is our house - if you don't like here - then you should leave.
But if you attack us - we will attack you back.

Posted by: Pass It On at February 13, 2006 6:21 AM

It won't matter where Iran hides their nuclear weapon making facilities: they have to be destroyed. Iran can do it voluntarily or someone will do it for them. It's elementary.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 13, 2006 9:17 AM

Who supported terrorism in Afganistan and Taliban, Answer Pakistan.

Hold on there, aman. Pakistan saw that they shared a long, porous border with a failed state that nobody was trying to fix. They knew their economy and infrastructure could not handle millions of refugees so they created the Taliban to stabilize the place. I may not like what they did, but I understand their reasons for doing it.

Remember, Pakistan at one time had a democracy secular enough to have a female prime minister. That's quite an accomplishment for a Muslim country. If there's even a glimmer of hope to bring that back, we should try to.

Posted by: Big G In TX at February 13, 2006 10:18 AM

"Iran have hundred's of nuclear weapons all ready with missiles able to reach parts of Europe easilies."

Hey Defender of Islime, are you Sadman Insane's former media officer from Iraq? You're just too hilarious! You've got me laughing so hard, I might have given myself an hernia. Albert Brooks must have missed you during his "Searching for Humor in Islam" tour.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at February 13, 2006 2:04 PM