Let us pray this is true...what would the problem be anyway?
Iran is already at war with America by proxy and
and it`s leader has promised to wipe a whole
country from the face of the earth, therefor
Israel should be involved too.
Ordinary Iranians should get rid of their despotic
leader or face the inevitable.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at February 18, 2007 5:34 AM

Why would this be publicised? I cannot understand why it would be if it was true. If it isn't true what is the point in doing this?

Someone enlighten me please?

Posted by: payingattention at February 18, 2007 5:44 AM

I'll cheerfully settle for simple destruction of Iran's nuclear R&D sites. However, if I had my druthers:

1.) Coordinated first wave strikes against:

a - All nuclear R&D facilities during their period of maximum occupancy. We need to denude Iran of not just their equipment but all scientific and technical expertise.

b - Iran's major C³ military bases. Suppress all critical troop mobility. Essentially leave Iran's ability to respond militarily at minimal levels, especially with respect to blocking or attacking the Straits of Hormuz.

c - Iran's entire legislative body, from the mullahs right down to the IRG. Decapitate the nation's entire clerical leadership.

2.) Cripple Iran's gasoline refining complexes. This simple measure can destabilize Iran in weeks, if not days. Refined gasoline is Iran's economic Achilles' heel.

3.) Sever all pipelines leading into and out of the Kharg Island pumping complex. Hold further destruction of this vital industrial facility in abeyance should another round of attacks prove necessary to persuade them.

4.) Surgically destroy the mullahs' villas and mansions to strip away resources, reduce their scope of power and make them more vulnerable to attack by resistance elements. All bomb shelters should be considered prime targets as well.

Please let me know if I have missed anything.

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 5:57 AM

Iran has been warned, countless times and war is coming. Which is good, would'nt want to stoop to their level and attack without warning, would we?

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at February 18, 2007 6:02 AM

I am an ex (ret.) tactical planning officer. I can assure you that "planning" is undoubtably in "advanced stages".

However, situational planning for any number of various scenarios, against any number of countries, for any number of reasons is always on-going... it is what military planners do. These people do not just sit around drinking coffee waiting for some event to happen. There are contingency plans constantly being developed and refined. Every possible (most unprobable)scenario, against every country on the planet is studied and an action plan is drawn up.

Obviously, less then say .0000001% are ever executed. The fact that there are plans in place... and the refinements are in "advanced" stages, neither makes the use of these plans likely or unlikely.

Even if (and there likely is) forces are rehearsing various plans... this also means nothing, insofar as the likelihood of a real military action taking place... again, because this is what our troops do.

Such planning and/or preparation is indicative of readiness and nothing more... not trying to piss on anyones parade (my own included).

Posted by: gnegypt at February 18, 2007 6:27 AM

The greatest failure of our leaders since that horrendous day five years ago, when 19 good Muslims with box cutters slaughtered 3000 Americans for the greater glory of the god of their prophet Mohammad, has been their failure to name the enemy.

Our enemies are the faithful followers of the religion of the prophet Mohammad and they have been brutally and terrifyingly resurgent for over 40 years.

When much of the West, including the American hating Left, was excoriating Israel for taking the offensive against the evil that is Islam resurgent this summer I proposed an analogy based on the fire triangle in order to come to some understanding of the inferno that is Islam resurgent.

Imagine a fire triangle--one side is oxygen, one side is fuel, and one side is energy. Fire needs a source of oxygen (air, ozone, etc.) which chemically combines with fuel at a high enough temperature to maintain the fire's combustion process. If one of these three factors is missing, fire cannot exist. Fire fighters extinguish fires by removing one or more of the sides of the triangle.
http://www.tpt.org/newtons/11/fire.html

The fuel is the manpower, weapons, money, training, intelligence, safe havens and all other material means mainly, but not exclusively, provided by despotic states with Muslim majorities.

The oxygen is Islam. Islam is an innately supremacist creed. Submission is the central tenet of Islam. Terror is the means sanctified by the prophet Mohammad to obtain submission.

The energy is provided by Muslim clerics, specifically Muslim clerics calling the faithful to jihad.

The oxygen and energy sides of the triangle are the crux of the evil that is Islam resurgent. On what basis does Islamic theology provide for an orientation toward peaceful coexistence with unbelievers? Are Muslim clerics prepared to unconditionally renounce jihad and lead the faithful to live peacefully with unbelievers?

Can Muslims live peacefully with unbelievers and remain true to Islam? Then why has not one Muslim cleric in America condemned, publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god? Why have Muslims living in the West, with all the freedoms of the West, not engendered a mass missionary movement to reclaim their religion back from the scum who embrace Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda? Why do Muslims living in the West find their young men seduced to the darkness that is Islam resurgent rather than being a palliative to the death cult of Islam?
(see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26961)

President Bush believes that the problem with the realm of Islam is a lack of freedom. But how do you bring freedom to a people who are prepared to kill themselves to deny freedom to anyone else? It is the confluence of our enemies, good Muslims, having the will to bring war, jihad, upon us and their ability to inflict mass causalities, WMDs, upon us that make this resurgent Islam the greatest peril America has ever faced.

Iraq is not now a threat because American forces will not permit Iraqis to use their oil wealth to obtain WMDs. If we are chased out of Iraq a regime hostile to America will use their oil wealth to obtain WMDs.

The mad mullahs of Iran have been at war with America for 27 years. They have been killing Americans in Iraq with impunity for four years. Any attempt to establish a regime in Iran not hostile to America will be met with the same jihadist’s violence that now confronts us in Iraq. It is more than likely that jihadist’s violence will establish a regime openly hostile to America in Pakistan. These are hard and terrible truths which we as a people must find the courage to acknowledge and do what must be done to deal with them.

I will conclude with one more terrible truth. Our national intelligence services have been dysfunctional since the American hating Left emasculated them in the 70s, the same American hating Left that now rule us from congress. I don’t believe attempting to strike discrete nuke sites in Iran will be sufficient because we don’t know where the hell they all are.

Five years after 9/11 why are the lights still on in Iran?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit a penny from Saudi Arabia to enter our country?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit Muslims to enter our country?

Five years after 9/11 why do we permit Muslims to remain in our country?

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

Posted by: Ralph127 at February 18, 2007 6:32 AM

Amazingly these letters come from the BBCs Have
Your Say pages , there are 18 pages of them the
majority in the same vein
A few months ago never mind a year ago they would would never been posted.
Something must be changing !

The Koran states that Christians can not be treated as equals, this is absolute and every Muslim HAS to live like this or they are apostates- which carries a death sentence, when westerners get this through their heads then they will realise that we can not just all sit down and talk . Islam was spread by force- read your history !!
crh, newcastle

Islam is a primitive, violent and oppressive religion practised by sheet-wearing desert savages. It has no place in any civilized western country.
anon.

First of all I should say there are moderate muslim countries and plenty of moderate muslims.
However beyond that yes conflict is inevitable:
When did the last Hindu blow up a bus
When did the last Buddhist hijack a plane
When did the last Sikh kidnap and tortue someone
When was the last time you saw a Shinto spreading Religious hatred in Hyde Park
When did the last Christian execute a hostage
When did the last Jew spray bullets into a crowd
Jack Kilms, Turin, Italy

There is already open conflict, and has been ever since Mohammad gave up herding camels and decided to start killing people in the name of (his) religion. Islam cannot co-exist with other religions, so we fight or surrender.

Nigel MacDonald, Camborne

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at February 18, 2007 6:51 AM

I wish it were so and had they pulled their finger out and done this 18 months ago we might have seen something. Now though the momentum is lost and nothing will happen. I hope I am proved wrong, but sadly I do not think I will be, the Islamic menace will continue to grow and a tragedy awaits the West.

Posted by: km at February 18, 2007 7:00 AM

it's tough to imagine how this will ultimately play out. Of course, I hope that the general populace will rise up and overthrow the Mullahs. And there are some signs, like the recent killing of the IRGC officers on a bus this past week, and students openly criticizing and heckly Ahmadinejad. It would be great if the world community would come together to support them through effective anti-gov't broadcasts into the country, sanctions, back-channel logistical and financial support. Where are the Reagans and Pope John Paul's and Lech Welesa's to lead this?

On the other hand, it's been some 28 years since the revolution, what makes us think anything will change now? the Mullahs rule with an iron fist. I don't see Iran changing it's current nuclear course. Certainly, I don't foresee any ground invasion. Air-strikes looks like the most likely scenario, and happening before Bush leaves office. That would open pandora's box of war, but can we really live with an Iran/Syrian/Hezbollah/Hamas/Al Qaeda bomb? I don't think so..

Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at February 18, 2007 7:53 AM

You have the Democrats and media pleading Bush not to open the war with Iran. you have ms pelosi wanting some F....ing dialog with iran and syria. now the Dubai boys are putting the word out the the US are ready to strike iran.. this is going to put pressure on Bush, and the democrats to halt any attack. another point is that Bush is putting out the military in front of iran to egg them on, and call their bluff or actually bomb the crap out of their nukes. there are may ways to see this, it all depends on the little man in iran. does he want to creat kaos and bring his might leader to destroy Israel or does he back done and wait till Bush is out of office?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 18, 2007 8:55 AM

ps sorry for all the spelling errors, too much in a rush, must be all this f...ing snow, where the hell is global warming when you need it!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 18, 2007 8:57 AM

Gingrich/Bolton for President 2008.

Posted by: The Goobs at February 18, 2007 9:30 AM

Sorry....I was dreaming.

Posted by: The Goobs at February 18, 2007 9:31 AM

there are may ways to see this, it all depends on the little man in iran. does he want to creat kaos and bring his might leader to destroy Israel or does he back done and wait till Bush is out of office?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

He keeps mouthing off to the US/World with his butt buddies (China/Russia) backing him up....whilst he waits for the Dimmicrats to wear down the President's power to handle Iraq - so that he can tell us that he now has a NUKE and then use it to Iran's advantage - just like NK...to get economic help - and further threaten Israel - giving Iran eve more respect/power/control in the Muslim world.

Newt was right. If the Dimmicrats want to stop the war then they need to cut off funding...but of course they don't want to do this....they want to pick away at the President so that they can make sure the war fails - so that they can then say that it's the policies of the President that made it fail. What they cannot afford is for the US to actually stabilize Iraq!

Dimmicrats want failure in Iraq - because they are running on an anti-war ticket. If we succeed, they look like the idiots they are. So they are going to act like asses until they screw things up bigtime.

And folks, all the Republicans that have sided with the Dimmicrats - to save their asses for the upcoming elections - THEY SHOULD BE UNSEATED! They are only interested in keeping their jobs...they are not doing what is best for this country.

Posted by: The Goobs at February 18, 2007 9:38 AM

Wars are always fought through information and disinformation.

One thing is reasonably sure, the ape will use his nukes one day just as he says he will.

Posted by: witness at February 18, 2007 9:43 AM

Lastly, I don't see why we haven't set off some EMP's over Iran. This could set them back YEARS and would prevent them from moving forward so quickly.

The only thing I can think of is some sort of 'behind the scenes' threat from Russia/China if we DO this sort of thing.

It's true that China/Russia could do this to US at any time and that would really cripple our country.

What is most concerning is China's recent display of how they can destroy our sattelites. Our military depend on sattelites and I strongly believe that this was a warning to the US that if we attack Iran, they will do their best to cripple us.

Nothing else makes sense to me. Anyone have any other theories? Share please.

Posted by: The Goobs at February 18, 2007 9:43 AM

Ah, wishful thinking; it ain't gonna happen. Like Bush said, if the Iranians infiltrate Iraq with ammo, they'll be dealt with accordingly..... Bang !

Posted by: Jeff at February 18, 2007 10:11 AM

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 05:57 AM
Excellent plan - and about a week's worth of work (leaving no time for media and DNC to launch their usual counter-offensive against the USA).

Posted by: TINBH at February 18, 2007 11:27 AM

My greatest fear these days is that Bush will supercede his folly of ill-conceived, misguided action in Iraq by a failure to act in Iran. Let us hope that a quick-strike, search and destroy, in-and-out strategy is being developped for deployment soon.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at February 18, 2007 12:38 PM

Robert says..

"but whether it will ever actually put such a plan into action is another matter."

I would add a little more...

or whether they have the competence to pull it off.

Look I agree Iran must be stopped but does anyone have confidence in this current "leadership" to come up with a plan that makes sense.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at February 18, 2007 12:42 PM

This is what all those carriers are for as a big stick. You might be surprised the war gamers have plans to blow up Venezuela, Cuba, China, Syria and about every nation on earth, because that is what they are paid to do to be prepared.

It is working. al Qaeda is evacuating to Lebanon out of Iraq, but the real test of an American attack is not going to come from the carrier groups, but from the B1 B2 and B52's. That is where America will strike Iran from.

Oh and for those who do not keep up on things. Diego Garcia was forward based the heavy bombers last year and so were the secondary B 1 fleet out of America last year. Global Strike is in place, but until someone sees the birds flying out of Missouri this is not happening. When they do, it will be 16 hours and Iran will light up radioactive.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 18, 2007 1:32 PM

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at February 18, 2007 01:41 PM:"I certainly hope so! The truth is we don't need the bombers or 16 hours to make Iran glow in the dark. Iran is only thirty minutes away by Minutman ICBMs and five minutes away by SLBM Tridents. All we need is a hand strong enough to turn the key in the White House War Room."

People have been reproducing pictures of B-1s flying over Baghdad. I think Iraq-the-Model has pictures. Bush has sent Patriot batteries to Iraq. None of this is useful for the surge. Iran on the other hand.....

For the first time in my life I pray for an attack. I say blow their military, their power, their arms factories, their Mullah's beach front homes, every little government-related thing to pieces. Israel tried it in Lebanon but screwed up by including a ground campaign. I hope Bush is willing to give it a go. They are in the Stone Age mentally. Time to return the rest of them.

Posted by: HeiGou at February 18, 2007 1:58 PM

"Lastly, I don't see why we haven't set off some EMP's over Iran."

The most traditional method of generating EMPs utilizes high altitude detonation of large yield nuclear devices so as to obtain maximum radius and efficacy. Disregarding any undesirable dispersion of ensuing fallout, there is still the matter of such a massive EMP wave front causing over voltages in unintended targets, (e.g., non-hostile airliners or allies in the region).

It is also impossible to ignore the political repercussions of having deployed nuclear weapons, even in such a comparatively benign fashion. Terrorists would (rightly) interpret such first-use as a justification for nuclear retaliation against domestic American targets. Under no circumstances must we invite such increased threat levels. Any use of nuclear weapons must be limited to the doctrine of Response in Kind so that the United States continues to retain its moral high ground.

A more controlled method of generating EMPs involves using FCGs (i.e., Explosively Pumped Flux Compression Generators) to achieve similar results (see link below). Their narrower scope of destruction limits unwanted spillover, but would also require deploying numerous devices. The coordination of a multi-component attack would have to be extremely precise in order to avoid allowing the shut down of sensitive equipment to avoid damage. (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html)

Furthermore, the complete crippling of Iran may not represent an optimal solution. Such a move would engender far more hostility in factions who are marginally friendly to American interests. Especially when compared to the minimized loss of life and reduced infrastructure effects that a limited campaign of pinpoint strikes would cause.

Finally, what better excuse could we give our enemies for initiating their own nuclear weapons projects than by using them in such an irresponsible fashion? Few other actions could trigger more vigorous nuclear proliferation in Muslim majority countries.

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 2:18 PM

I have military strategy questions about this.

Why is a build up in the Persian Gulf needed for a strike against Iran since there are considerable US military presences with control of airbases in Iraq and Afganistan?

Can US Navy fast attack submarines armed with cruise missiles get into the Gulf undetected?

Why fly out of Missouri?

Thanks.

Posted by: Alek at February 18, 2007 2:32 PM

"When they do, it will be 16 hours and Iran will light up radioactive."

"All we need is a hand strong enough to turn the key in the White House War Room."

I strongly urge you to reconsider such a foolhardy notion as initiating nuclear strikes against Iran. As mentioned in my previous post, no other action could provide better justification for both terrorist nuclear retaliation against American soil and a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons development in Muslim majority countries. America instantly would lose the vital moral high ground it has correctly and justifiably maintained for over half a century.

We have conventional weapons, in the form of fuel-air bombs, that can create nuclear-level explosions without any fallout. We have bunker-buster bombs that can dig down to amazing depths. While Iran has used subway tunnel boring machines to emplace some facilities deep inside mountains, they are still vulnerable to having their ventilation and external electrical power cut off.

Please think twice before advocating any first-use of nuclear weapons. Few other actions by America could endanger our nation more than such an ill-thought-out strategy. Our Response in Kind doctrine has been in place precisely for this reason and has stood the test of time quite well.

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 2:36 PM

This is probably just psychological warfare. It would be difficult for Bush to launch an attack. But if he does, the good news is that Iran's military is a bit of a paper tiger. Despite some fancy defensive weapons they are buying from Russia and China, their military is no match for US firepower. They know this and will not push the US to the point where it will destroy their country; but they will play some brinksmanship in the meantime. The problem with playing a game of "chicken" like this is that sometimes mistakes happen. Plus, a third party may stirs things up.

This bombing of Iranian guards (11 dead) was an interesting development. I wonder how the Iranians like some of their own medicine?

My guess is that there will be some sort of confusing incident, followed by a limited strike on Iran; ultimately, the US/Israel will introduce enough chaos to keep Iran destablized. This has worked for the Palestinians (test case), Iraq (big experiment), and next Iran.

This approach seems to work.

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at February 18, 2007 2:37 PM

Would somebody fill me in, I'm dense.

What would bombing nuclear plants do? What would be the radiation spread in the atmosphere? WOuld it not spread in the upper areas, the clouds and be taken everywhere -around the planet by wind and weather?

I mean woulnd't it be JUST the Iranians breathing it in? Wouldn't you care to think about that?

Why should we kill Iranians, when they are unwilling hostages to islam? The Iranians themselves are struggling against the theocracy.

The way this is done certainly is not going to help us - but only the agendas of the bush cabal- beelzebub & cohort. These are not telling you that the real reason they're going to bomb the place.

Perhaps you haven't figured out yet - that military actions by the u.s. are NOT for the benefit of the people - but this is all about 2 rival forces trying to take over the earth.

For example, ok, we've got terrible problems in IRaq - but one thing, the Allies have complete control of the oil pipelines. Where is the oil going? It's not coming to us, The People. The continuation of this war, certainly is not helping us.

We got saddam. Now in what way is it to our interests that we stay there, now?

Do you think that when the U.S. gets iran, our troubles will be over? What way will we People benefit?

It's strange that here in this site, I've read your comments, and overall you've been/are against bush and the admin.- are suspicious of them- but all of a sudden you now agree that the U.S. should open another war Front!

AREN'T YOU SUSPICIOUS NOW?

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE - N O W - FOR THE ADMIN.?

And the world opinion will turn on us, the U.S. as a rogue country. And, People, we can't do it alone, not any more. If we do this thing, the atrocious bombing, we surely are going to have to deal with Russia, China, the Koreas and who knows who else. Our enemies will be many more. Not only of foreigners, but right here in this country. We will be seen being the transgressors.

The Iranian monkey's rhetoric doesn't matter - it's just blathering.

My friends, the Game of War - is conducted as well, by collecting allies behind the enemy lines - and having them willingly work for us. Being kind to them - even if it is with our own self-interest - Showing them that our way- is how things work.

Anyway, with the Iraq War - we've lost our Way. We have have gone as far from our former selves, our Path of Compassion and Caritas, as we can be.

Once, we, were that.

As for me, I'm against the bombing of our potential allies behind the lines, the Iranians.
I don't want to be like the islamics. Do what they do.

This is the way I am.

Posted by: allat at February 18, 2007 3:09 PM

Ralph127, you ask some of the most vital and telling questions regarding Islam’s willingness to peaceably coexist with any other cultures.

”On what basis does Islamic theology provide for an orientation toward peaceful coexistence with unbelievers?”

It doesn’t. The only provisions made for non-Muslims are violent conflict or the constant physical insecurity of dhimmitude.

”Are Muslim clerics prepared to unconditionally renounce jihad and lead the faithful to live peacefully with unbelievers?”

They are if they want to live. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a cult that is obsessed with death and willingly forsakes life rather than envision even the most minute change in doctrine. Additionally, such a renunciation would constitute apostasy which, throughout Islamic cultures, is punishable by death.

”Can Muslims live peacefully with unbelievers and remain true to Islam? “

All indications derived from the Koran itself and numerous fatwas issued both historically and in modern times point towards a negative reply.

”Then why has not one Muslim cleric in America condemned, publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god?”

While there have been a very limited few who have done what you mention, the vast majority do not regard terrorism as evil. End of story. What follows are direct quotes of fatwas issued by Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, widely considered by Islamic authorities and the Western press to be a moderate Muslim.

A.) ... a Fatwa contending that it is haram (sin) for any Muslim to give up any bit of Palestine (including the territory of the State of Israel).

B.) ... that martyr operations are: a) a defense of Islamic territory and religion; b) Jihad in honor of Allah; c) not terrorism but heroic acts; and d) not by any means suicide, but as far removed from suicide as conceivable.

C.) ... Jihad is now an absolute necessity for the entire Arab nation. Everyone must engage in Jihad with everything he is and with everything he has.

(The above passages from Qaradawi fatwas quoted at: http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2005.01.17.JTA.Facts_on_Qaradawi.html)

"Why have Muslims living in the West, with all the freedoms of the West, not engendered a mass missionary movement to reclaim their religion back from the scum who embrace Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda?"

Those “scum” are fulfilling the Koran’s prophecies with respect to Islam dominating the West. This is something few Muslim can bring themselves to eschew. There is also the issue that for one Muslim to accuse another Muslim of improper conduct means that one of them is apostate and therefore worthy of a death sentence. This single fact so stifles any and all internal review and criticism that reformation is simply out of the question.

"Why do Muslims living in the West find their young men seduced to the darkness that is Islam resurgent rather than being a palliative to the death cult of Islam?"

Sadly, modern Western culture no longer emphasizes autoscopic or introspective thinking. Far too many highly corrosive elements of modern American culture are so firmly set in place that few, if any, want to question their actual validity. Moral relativism and Political Correctness represent just two such philosophical toxins.

Confronted with such mindlessness, America’s Muslim youth most likely see no difference between the robotic mentality of modern fashion slaves and the automaton-like servitude required of them by Islam.

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 3:18 PM

”Would somebody fill me in, I'm dense.”

I’ll just have to take your word for it.

”What would bombing nuclear plants do?”

Stop further progress by Iran towards the production of nuclear weapons. Few other more vital military actions confront the Western world at this immediate point. Allowing Iran acquisition of nuclear weapons would represent the single most egregious strategic blunder of this new century.

” What would be the radiation spread in the atmosphere?”

While some radiation might be released, due to the clandestine and concealed nature of Iran’s nuclear installations much of the scattered radioactive material would probably be buried beneath the massive earthworks currently used to protect their underground installations. Few people outside Iran would probably suffer anything more than exposure to the equivalent of several chest x-rays.

” WOuld it not spread in the upper areas, the clouds and be taken everywhere -around the planet by wind and weather? “

Most likely not. Additionally, we are confronted with the distinct possibility that if we do not act to preempt Iran’s nuclear R&D, they will detonate a nuclear weapon themselves and release just as much, if not more, radioactive fallout with far more deleterious results, most likely for Israel or America.

”I mean woulnd't it be JUST the Iranians breathing it in?”

For the most part, it would be dieing Iranian nuclear scientists and technicians at the bombed out facilities who would be doing the most breathing of radioactive material. Ironically, radioactive material that they themselves helped to produce.

”Wouldn't you care to think about that?”

I, and many others, have done so for quite some time now and reached the conclusion of; “Better them than us.”

”Why should we kill Iranians, when they are unwilling hostages to islam?”

Because many of them aren’t. Far too many Iranian Muslims want to see real harm done to America, Israel and the bulk of other Western cultures. The few who do not aren't in possession of sufficient weaponry or political power to alter that stance and therefore cannot be permitted to sway intelligent military doctrine.

”The Iranians themselves are struggling against the theocracy.”

Perhaps some are, but not nearly vigorously enough to change the foregoing one whit.

”The way this is done certainly is not going to help us - but only the agendas of the bush cabal- beelzebub & cohort.”

I detect a distinct whiff of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I’m no cheerleader for George Bush, but he alone has had the courage to look after America’s security and I refuse to interfere with such a critical task.

” These are not telling you that the real reason they're going to bomb the place.”

So, why don’t you feel free to give us poor benighted ignoramuses the benefit of your superior reasoning ability.

”Perhaps you haven't figured out yet - that military actions by the u.s. are NOT for the benefit of the people - but this is all about 2 rival forces trying to take over the earth.”

Even if what you say is true, and parts of it are, which force would you rather see having control of this earth? Might it be American democracy, with its system of constitutional law, elected representation and peer judgment? Or, perhaps, you would prefer Islam with its nearly unilateral capital punishment of all crime, abject gender apartheid, theocratic totalitarianism and program of comprehensive global cultural genocide?

No need to hurry in any way. Please feel free to take some time in order to best make up your mind. Need I go on?

Posted by: Zenster at February 18, 2007 4:01 PM

Didn't Ahmad say that his Mahdi is coming this spring, and that he will only come during a cataclysmic event. Interesting!

Posted by: champ at February 18, 2007 8:17 PM

The Iranians still have a lesson coming from 1979 and everything else they have had their hands in since. This isn't something new, it is decades old. We didn't take action in '79 and we haven't since. I hope the time has come for a lesson to be taught to the Islamic Republic. Iranian President Tom is only the mouthpiece for the clerics. The true enemy sits in the mosque feeding his face and doing whatever it is a cleric does. The homicide bombers are only their weapon of choice. A Nuclear Weapon would be the ultimate method for a jihadists to turn himself into mist while murdering thousands of "infidels".
We have pussyfooted around for almost three decades since they took Americans hostage. Now we are knee deep in Iraq and the Iranians are rattling their sabers. Let's give them something to rattle their knees about. I hate to think of the war this is likely to lead to, but the alternative cannot be tolerated.

Posted by: DavidH at February 19, 2007 12:04 AM

Zenster outlined four targets for the attack, and asked if he had missed anything.

Yesterday there was a discussion of the unrest in Baluchistan in SE Iran. This Sunni tribe should be targeted for supply of weapons and logisitical support by air and encourage them to set up a separate state, sharia or whatever, but separate from the Shia's in Tehran. This would be a take-off on the Fitzgerald strategy of letting the two sects fight it out.

The same for the Kurds in the NW. We can easily deny airspace to the Iranians over these areas for supply by air.

Secondly I would add putting VOA under the Defense Department and get the expatriate Iranian radio group in LA that is privately attacking the moulahs, and put them in charge of VOA programming. They should have been supported by Bush for the last 5 years but instead he has ignored them and has had Hollywood dunces singing rap music to them. I guess the Yale Biz school curriculum did not include study of Goebbelspeak.

Additionally, there are infrastructure targets that could be destroyed to help foment unrest. Destroy bridges, dams, water supply and power plants, refinery capacity, export capacity, and you cripple the economy and grease the wheels of dissent, helping the people want to dispense with the moulahs.

I heard an interesting KSFO radio discussion tonight between Barbara Simpson and Lee Harris. Harris, author of "Civilization and its Enemies" opined that the historic failure of civilizations could be traced to the ruling class becoming indolent, and some minority taking power away from them. The focus of the discussion was the French Revolution, but the idea was extended to the Arab Muslim invasion and take over much of the Christian World in N. Africa and Turkey- they just wiped out the Christian ruling class and substituted themselves. This would seem to be a historic Muslim war tactic. So why not help them apply this principle to themselves? Through every conceivable propaganda approach, cripple the moulahs and open them for revolution from below. Combine that with insurgency in the NW and SE and you might have the makings of a new, tamer, Iran.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at February 19, 2007 3:14 AM