For me, the best car speakers are the ones that provide the best combination of fidelity and power….

I like it ronnie. I like it alot. We know from experience how things get when the pumps dry up. Seriously, I think it might work. If not, get Limerick’s daisy cutters in there followed by BFI. (Gotta have a post war plan nowadays.)

Attack the refineries now with conventional weapons. We could do it with nine cruise missiles. As Billy Sol Hurok would say, refineries blow up good, blow up real good.

The Israelis could take care of the refineries. They have missile subs with cruise missile capabilities. A naval blockade of gasoline/diesel tankers might require the US Navy, and since most of Iran’s oil is offshore, some Navy Seals to take the oil platforms.

This would be a measured military response to a clear and present danger. The regime would collapse in a matter of days.

Taking a threatening posture against your enemy while spending the bulk of your budget on the military (nuke development in Iran’s case) will eventually put a strangle hold on the economy and piss-off the peasants to the point where they rise up in defiance of the government that completely ignored their minimal needs.

How ironic that the Russians have greatly assisted in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and are currently selling them millions of dollars of military defense weaponry.

Russia’s recouping funds from their excessive military spending in years past, and in the process they’re leading Iran down the same path that led to the downfall of their motherland

On topic……DAISY CUTTER the whole place…then fill up every single cargo aircraft we have with our trash and make a giant land fill out of the whole country. Delivery every Monday and Thursday.

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued “Iran’s ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible” if one understands the Islamic republic’s many vulnerabilities.
Tehran’s leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on “superpower” status, but the country is “very weak … (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation,” said Katzman of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service.
The economy is mismanaged and “quite primitive,” exporting

It is not surprising Al-Reuters is reporting that Iran is actually weak, not strong, so that when we attack Iran they can make it look like Iran was never a threat.

Dems work this way: Throughout the 1990s complain that Iraq is a huge threat and that Republicans didn’t “finish the job.” When Republicans finish the job, screech that it was based on lies and that North Korea and Iran were actually the gigantic threats. When we do something about Iran, pretend that they were not threats at all.

If we attack Iran and overthrow their government, liberals lose a key ally, Islamic Iran, which is why they do not want us to attack it at any cost.

So, it looks like a military strike against Irans nuke sites is the only response that we can effect that the Europeans cannot weaken.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

After reading subsunk’s response to your comments about economic pressures on Iran, I did some checking and it seems that we have been increasing that pressure on Iran for many years, with a huge increase during the Clinton years. They are working somewhat, but, like always, the Europeans are hamstringing our efforts. So, it looks like a military strike against Irans nuke sites is the only response that wefigure all this out! can effect the Europeans cannot weaken.

So, I agree that economic santions need to stay in effect, but a military strike may be the next step in bringing them into compliance. Perhaps a military strike against their nuke sites and then an easing of sanctions if they respond favorable?

Man, I’m glad I don’t have to be responsible for making those decisions.

Subsunk … nice work.

You awake to discover that a US Islamist nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is heading in your their direction, as is a new anti-missile defence system to protect your ours neighbours from the missiles you plan to point at them.

Mz. Pelose?, Mrs. Clinton? Want a Lolly-Pop Ms. Frank?

(Crickets chriping)

(Timer ticking)

BOOM!

Hands up if you’ve lost the plotBy Gethin Chamberlain, Sunday Telegraph (H/T: Allahpundit) First, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alienated the rest of the world with his religious extremism, nuclear ambitions and global grandstanding. Now, due to domestic failur…

Iranian student leader: Ayatollahs will run if Iran attacked After years in jail, solitary confinement, torture and finally escape to US, Iranian student revolutionary leader Amir-Abbas Fakhr-Avar tells Ynet: Now is time for revolution, world must supp…

Exit question: Who said this about Bush?…

Hint: It’s not Ahmadinejad. He wouldn’t be that insulting.

No, no, it’s not the ugly and ignorant Ahmi.

It’s the intelligent, erudite, beautiful, charming, well-bred, and well-read Senator John D. Rockefeller.

Perhaps we should remove the threat of military action against Iran? I’m sure they would come around to our way of thinking then.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

My point is that economic pressure is a sound strategy. Did I say remove the threat? The hawks were calling for strikes on Iran as the only solution. That is shortsided and false. Two carrier groups in the gulf makes our point just fine. They have no real military, we could destroy their facilities with the flip of a switch. The question is do we need to do that? The answer is no. I advocate strikes to prevent Iran from having nukes I just believe that should Iran pursue nukes any further it will bankrupt the country and initiate regime change. And honestly I prefer that option for reasons stated above.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Right. Economic pressure. Like the pressure exerted by the last 28 yrs of sanctions on Iran by the US. Like the sanctions just approved by the EU and Russia and China to restrict travel for… Iranian diplomats. You mean that kind of economic pressure? Like it hasn’t been tried by the US without success and blocked by the EU, Russia and China with similar success at overthrowing the Iranian mullahs. What do you propose? Sanp our fingers and drop a lead weight on every money transaction involving Iran?

“Should Iran pursue nukes any further it will bankrupt the country”. Well bankrupting the country didn’t seem to stop Saddam, the Soviet Union, and is not stopping Iran from pursuit of those nukes. And we all see how that bankruptcy of infrastructure just irritated the Hell out of the Iraqis, causing them to rise up against Saddam and throw him out, no? Perhaps you underestimate the stupidity of the regime to follow a course of bankruptcy despite the effects of nuclear research on their economy? Just snap your fingers again, click your heels together, Dorothy? Pure Fricking Magic will save us.

As for the “hawks” in the administration pursuing only military options, what the Hell do you call the last 2 years pursuit in the UN. Jacks? Bridge? Stratego? Diplomacy has already been at work against Iran intensely for the last 3-4 yrs, and less intensely since 1979. Just how long will you give that to work, especially since you say you are fine with bombing Iran to stop nuke production, just not invading the place. After all bombing isn’t really like declaring war on some one. The Palestinians do it all the time and it never bothers the Israelis!

Methinks your logic is a bit unsettled.

Subsunk

We should abandon the approaches of Radio Farda and the Farsi Service of VOA and return to the approach that served us so well in the Cold War. Ion Pacepa, the most senior Soviet Bloc intelligence officer to defect during the Cold War (when he was Acting Director of Romanian Intelligence) recently wrote that two missiles brought down the Soviet Union: Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Our current broadcasting does not inform Iranians about what is happening in Iran, as RFE and RL did about matters in the Bloc. Privately-financed Farsi broadcasts from the US follow the RFE-RL model to some extent, but exist on a shoestring. Instead we sponsor radio that principally broadcasts music and brief world news, and television that, I suppose seeking a bizarre version of balance, sometimes utilizes correspondents with remarkable views: one VOA correspondent, on another network, last year characterized the arrest in the UK of 21 individuals accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic airliners with liquid explosives as “a conspiracy against Islam” by the US and alleged that the US and the UK fabricated the plot to deflect attention from “Hezbollah victories”. (Richard Benkin in Asian Tribune Aug. 12, 2006, vol. 6 no. 41.)

As for Iraq, I believe that the decision to invade was the correct one. But that has more to do with Iraq’s violations of the cease-fire and its willful disregard of the agreements it made.

GT on January 21, 2007 at 12:15 AM

I too believe it was the right decision. I even take it a step further….I don’t care if we invaded Iraq, for the sole purpose of drawing terrorists and their resources to us rather than leave them to use those resources against US soil. To me it is very clear that attacking a Suuni stronghold in Saddam’s Iraq would draw other Sunni radicals to fight us there, and I don’t see how the Bush admin didn’t see that too. It seems like a good strategy, but not one US citizens would agree with.

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 12:04 AM

I agree. The US leadership of both parties do appear to be clueless at times, one more than the other.

My fear is that we’ll jump at the chance to help the “students” only to get slapped in the face again. The source of that fear is Islam. I don’t care if its moderate Muslims or even professing liberal muslims (if there is such a thing). That faith has such a strangle-hold on all of them that no matter what we do, we’ll end up on the losing end.

As for Iraq, I believe that the decision to invade was the correct one. But that has more to do with Iraq’s violations of the cease-fire and its willful disregard of the agreements it made.

.

GT on January 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM

I would hope we have learned lessons, but on viewing the events in Iraq it seems as if we are just clueless sometimes.

Knowing that there are think tanks out there, I find myself secretly hoping that the Bush admin utilized these think tanks before making policy and the events are fleshing out pretty much as planned, but they cannot be honest with the american people about it because we just wouldn’t understand the strategy behind it.

Yeah, I know…dream on.

Trouble is, it would only degenerate into a collection of Muslim Warlords running city-states. This part of the world needs Jesus SOOOOOO bad. They can’t even think in a straight line in the middle east.

ritethinker on January 20, 2007 at 11:31 PM

I don’t think its impossible. The difference between then and now is that I hope we’ve paid a little more attention to history’s lessons a’la Castro.

.

We should keep up the pressure, contemplate strikes if need be, and develop a dialogue with the (if any) dissident element to see exactly what would replace Ahmadinejad. As we can see, our experience in Iraq was not exactly stellar – I don’t think that we want to repeat that.

That still doesn’t answer the question. If the students were to successfully overthrow the government, what would they replace it with?

There’s some talk of a constitutional monarchy with Reza Pahlavi as the new Shah. His daughters were born in the US, and therefore are citizens here. I think he likes us.