"They're about taking out the entire Iranian military"

[Christians4LessGvt]

Pentagon "three-day blitz" plan for Iran

Sunday TimesSeptember 2, 2007
Sarah Baxter, Washington


THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians? military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for pinprick strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. They're about taking out the entire Iranian military, he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same. It was, he added, a very legitimate strategic calculus.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran before it is too late.

One Washington source said the temperature was rising inside the administration. Bush was sending a message to a number of audiences, he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported significant cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA, he said. They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq increasingly under control, Iranian intervention is the next major problem the coalition must tackle.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

[Plane]

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No , Strategic Air Command is not busy at all, and has the capability to deliver more ordinance power than was used in all of WWII in a twenty hour period.

[Xavier_Onassis]

  ???What we really need is THREE unstable nation in the Middle East. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Not that Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan or even Egypt are all that stable these days.

[Mr_Perceptive]

We could put them back to the Stone Age, from the air. It is unclear whether presently we have the ordnance in inventory, however. It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up.

Should we is a different matter altogether.

Behind the scenes support for terrorists is one thing. If they were to openly support them, via proof, now THAT, ladies and gentleman, is another issue altogether.

[Christians4LessGvt]

re: "It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up"

it would take 90 days to build up supply?
thats not really all that much when you consider the upsides of destroying the Islamic Republic's military

[gipper]

Meanwhile, the would-be inheritors of the fire are attending bake sales in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bombing Iran, which is considered to be a democracy by many Muslims, would lose all credibility with the people of all the Muslim countries and with the rulers of all but perhaps Saudi Arabia.

Think upon this: if Canada were invaded by a country who had previously meddled hugely in US politics, would not the US feel it had a right to affect the possible future government of Canada?

The US cannot hope to defeat and control the entire Muslim and Arab world. Not even the parts of it that have oil. We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million. How could they possibly cause Iran to have a friendly government if we destroyed their military?

Not that I am convinced they even have the power to do that.

[BT]

We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million.

Since when was that the goal?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The goal has ALWAYS been to control Iraq. Saddam had to be removed because Saddam could NOT be controlled (by bribery, like the Saudi royals and Mubarak, or intimidation, like Syria and the Emitrates). Originally, the idea was to set up a puppet government that would cut a big break to US oil companies. After all, Saddam was not at all competent at pumping his oil and there was a lot of waste, and he didn't have ther newer technology that permits more oil to be extracted faster with less damage to the fields. Big Oil figured that they could do the job more efficiently and since Saddam & Co. got most of the money, they could even make the average Iraqi more prosperous. It didn't work, because Iraqis are not as materialistic as Big Oil guys, and repaying old debts is more important to many Iraqis to the exclusion of all else.

  Now they idea is to have enough control over Iraq so as to turn it over to Iraqis who can be trusted to hate Al Qaeda and not to screw with Israel or Big Oil.

If the US were not interested in control in Iraq, they would just leave.

Anarchy, you say. Yes, but anarchy is what happens when no one is in control.

I bet you think that this was some great altruistic venture on behalf of St Juniorbush of Midland, patron saint of democracy.

[Mr_Perceptive]

re: "It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up"

it would take 90 days to build up supply?
thats not really all that much when you consider the upsides of destroying the Islamic Republic's military

Well, a question from one of the few sane contributors. Son, I salute you.

I guessed, based upon my own experience. Some ordnance is more dififcult to replace, in time, than others. Cruise miissiles are complex devices and so take a bit. Daisy cutters are rare and the manufacturing line basically inactive and so on.

It is of course easier if you can exert executive mandate as in commandeering FedeX 767s. Cannot do that with daisy cutters.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, perhaps all the weapons used to wipe out Iran's military can be made in 90 days. But where does the money to pay for this come from? Do we borrow more from the Chinese? 

Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?

There will be refugees. Where will they go?  Iraq?  Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?

The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.

This is an unspeakably stupid idea economically, politically and militarily.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Bombing Iran, which is considered to be a democracy by many Muslims, would lose all credibility with the people of all the Muslim countries and with the rulers of all but perhaps Saudi Arabia.

Think upon this: if Canada were invaded by a country who had previously meddled hugely in US politics, would not the US feel it had a right to affect the possible future government of Canada?

The US cannot hope to defeat and control the entire Muslim and Arab world. Not even the parts of it that have oil. We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million. How could they possibly cause Iran to have a friendly government if we destroyed their military?

Not that I am convinced they even have the power to do that.

However, you make the typical liberal mistake of assuming WE GIVE A SHIT! F--k 'em! We do what is right! They don't like it, take it up with God. Oh, that's right, they don't have one. In that case, sit back and take your crap like good little boys and girls. When I grew up, all us boys knew who could whup our ass and whose we could whup. Perhaps they need to be taught a lesson in pack mentlaity. You wanna join, you work with the big boys or sit back and shut the f--k up.

Look, I'm for leaving 'em alone as long as they do likewise. Don't need the hassle. There are enough asses in the world to deal with anyway. The ones that play the game (the "game" being decided by whoever has the biggest ----), can reap the benefits. Those that don't, oh well..thier loss. Of course, the UN was created so the little dogs cna cooperate and disturb this balance of nature. Then again, it rarely works either.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is clear that you don't give a shit. But you forget that you are some sort of Neanderthal troglodyte goon that pretty much any educated person tends to disparage and despise, and rightly so.

Iran has a greater stake in a stable Iraq than the US, in the same way that the US has a greater stake in a stable Mexico.

Within 10 years, the US will have left Iraq, and outr only reminders of this grossly stupid blunder will be all the legless, armless, blind and insane vets that Juniorbush has destroyed through his immense stupidity.

Iran, however, will continue to have a border with Iraq, and will be one of two majority Shiite nations on the planet.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Okay, perhaps all the weapons used to wipe out Iran's military can be made in 90 days. But where does the money to pay for this come from? Do we borrow more from the Chinese? 

Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?

There will be refugees. Where will they go?  Iraq?  Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?

The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.

This is an unspeakably stupid idea economically, politically and militarily.

Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?

Ok, Darwin at his best. Who cares? Next?

There will be refugees. Where will they go?  Iraq?  Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?

Now, THIS is too bad. If we can help them, fine. Or, pay countires closer to them to assist them. I am all FOR assisting women and children.

The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.

Don't care about what others think. You shouldn't either. Do your job. They don't like it, tough for them. Life isn't fair! Typical liberal platitudes. Only wimps worry about such things. You talk and walk from a a position of strength, always. Or, you suck it up and shut up!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Zey are Veeklings!  Zey vill be destroyed!

Zieg HEIL!

================================
I suggest you hold your breath while you await the bombardment of Iran.
I doubt that even Juniorbush is stupid enough to bomb Iran.

You could also get the Marine logo installed in your eye. I doubt that it will harm your perspective.