Report: Iranian troops cross into southern Iraq; attack British troops; Update: Sun article added; Update: Debunked?
posted at 10:23 pm on June 25, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
If we had a bat signal around here, this story would earn it.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain’s defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on “intelligence matters”.
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: “It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran — but nobody has officially declared it.”
“We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot.”
Have the Iranians judged the strength of the British military based on its most recent close encounter with the Royal Navy? If so, now’s a good time to start worrying.
Update (AP): The Sun’s article is out. I’m suspicious that a story as potentially big as this is being leaked to a tabloid instead of one of the prestige papers, but here you go:
IRANIAN forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys, intelligence chiefs say.
Military experts claim this worrying move means we are at WAR with Iran in all but name…
Our Boys picked up the Iranian helicopters on radar crossing into empty desert.
The sightings have been confirmed to The Sun by very senior military sources.
At least two Brit squaddies are thought to have been killed by bombs planted during these incursions into Maysan province — Corporal Ben Leaning, 24, and Trooper Kristen Turton, 27…
Until now, secret units from Iran’s fanatical RGC have restricted themselves to just training and arming Shia rebels in Iraq.
Why are they choppering in to plant bombs? They own southern Iraq; they could just send the materiel across the border and let their proxies do it for them. And why would they risk trying something as provocative as this with the Brits having already declared their intention to withdraw and the U.S. on the brink of following suit? They’ll have a free hand in Iraq once we’re gone. It’s madness to chance a casus belli with a direct attack on coalition troops.
I guess it all depends on how mad you think the mad mullahs are. Not as mad as has been suggested, perhaps.
Update: Bob Owens checks around with a few people who would know and discovers that the Maysan province story smells funny.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I am sure the United Nations will take care of this right quick.
…laugh…
Montana on June 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM
What did Bush or the Jews do now to provoke this?
profitsbeard on June 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Bush can’t secure any border.
PRCalDude on June 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Bryan, did you catch the YouTube video I posted on the Hitchens thread? I didn’t know if it was “old” news.
Connie on June 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
“Good. I’d prefer a stand up fight to all this sneakin around.”
Iblis on June 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I don’t know profitsbeard. Maybe it was Global Warming.
Montana on June 25, 2007 at 10:28 PM
A few stray Tomahawk missiles might discourage further border incursions.
DOD: “Oh, sorry, Tehran. We’re letting the interns from The Capitolist program our missiles now. So sorry.”
Mindcrime on June 25, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Armagettin tired of this!…..GOD
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 10:31 PM
It would be really hot if we just went ahead and launched a few dozen W88s upon Iran.
Metro on June 25, 2007 at 10:32 PM
time to send the 101 in to help the Brits
Defector01 on June 25, 2007 at 10:32 PM
So when do the gloves come off?
They invade our embassy an act of war and we do nothing.
They supply arms to kill 100’s of our troops an act of war and we do nothing.
They capture 15 NATO troops and under our NATO treaty is an act of war and we do nothing.
They invade a country an act of war and we do nothing.
They help launch a war on Israel last year and we do nothing.
They help Hamas move into power and we do nothing.
So when can we do something? Are we really that undermanned in the area?
unseen on June 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Since Bush won’t give them a Gulf of Tonkin I guess they are going to give us one. Either way it won’t matter. They will be the ‘victims’ of American aggression. Gulf of Tonkin this, Gulf of Tonkin that. Rosie will wet herself laughing.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Oh for crying out loud lets bomb them already…sheesh we need Reagan back.
boomer on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 PM
LOL, true that.
But seriously, I wonder about the accuracy of this report. What does Iran have to gain from doing something this overtly stupid?
infidel4life on June 25, 2007 at 10:43 PM
If this is happening, it’d certainly be quite the coup to find a way to lure the Iranians into a trap and capture at least a few of them, so there could no longer be any question as to what’s going on.
Obviously, I’ve no idea how feasible that kind of a deliberately planned action would be, though. Probably unrealistic. Still, I’d love to see some Iranian soldiers being paraded before western cameras for a change (yeah, I know, Geneva convention and all. Shame it hasn’t done a thing for American POW’s since WWI).
Blacklake on June 25, 2007 at 10:43 PM
It is clear that we should now help Iran acquire nukes.
They should be measured in megatons, and we should deliver
them free of charge.
spike on June 25, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Well there was that j-post(?) report the other day about Israel practicing long range flights. Good hunting, I pray, is in the offing.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 10:45 PM
The UN is too busy condemning the US and Israel.
amerpundit on June 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I doubt very much that’s their thinking at this stage. Granted the way their actions have been received recently, I expect the question more on their minds would be “What do we have to lose?”
Blacklake on June 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Nothing to worry about. They are just looking for some volunteers for their chess club. Plus they have a few gift bags that they want to give away.
Bereans on June 25, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Why are we taking an anonymous report from a British tabloid so seriously? What am I missing here?
bnelson44 on June 25, 2007 at 10:50 PM
We’ve got to do this carefully. Mhadman is playing this game like a virtuoso; he’s cunning like a fox..and he has a PhD. He knows we here in the US are stretched thin politically, he knows our election cycles. I believe he’s timing events for a nuclear strike on Israel, to pave the way for his Mahdi.
Bush should try to regain Conservative support…by dropping his support of this shamnesty bill. Otherwise, he’s too weak to lead us against Iran.
Serr8d on June 25, 2007 at 10:50 PM
We shall see…
infidel4life on June 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Usually when this happens, you shoot the attackers. Maybe the Brits want a time out to call their literary agent.
pat on June 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
This isn’t the first time. There have been previous reports of Iranian military in Iraq running into coalition forces.
Tantor on June 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Old Bush Doctrine:
Iran is part of the Axis of Evil
New Bush Doctrine:
Don’t think of them as invaders, think of them as hard
working Iranians who need to be brought out of the shadows.
We aren’t going to fight them but we are going to get them
brand new Iraqi Z-Visas!
I miss the old Bush Doctrine.
Drew on June 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Why does it say copyright 2005 at the bottom of that aricle?
Dreamweaver on June 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I have a feeling we may have a little surprise for the IRG. It would be sweet to trap a few dozen of them on the Iraqi side of the border. I wonder who would come to their defense at the UN or on the battlefield? Mahdi, Russia, China, Venezuela?
Zorro on June 25, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Touche.
Pablo on June 25, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Their economy is tanked. They are way over confident in their air defenses. Bringing the UN and EU to it’s knees by closing the straits. China will be screaming bloody murder.
Russia would be laughing all the way to the bank with their pipelines and weapons sales. The American political system would implode. Good plan……..on paper. Totalitarian regimes love paper plans. The enemy always does just what you expect them to do.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Incredible.
Even more incredible is that even if Bush wanted to hit back, I just don’t think the support would be there. Either from Congress, or from the public.
Sad really.
nailinmyeye on June 25, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Dreamweaver,
It looks like a footer placed on all the AFP articles at that site. Webmaster didn’t update it.
bnelson44 on June 25, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Should have been, like, last year.
Lately I find domestic issues and the Presidential race far more interesting than foreign policy issues, despite the ultra-importance of the War on Terror.
Why? Defense policy
isshould be relatively simple — interfere with the United States, face the consequences…A few good spankins’, no holds barred, and the world would think twice before messin with us.
HYTEAndy on June 25, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Hm, I guess Iranians are just doing the jobs that Iraqis increasingly won’t do.
Those who are awaiting a ‘last straw’ that will precipitate a massive counter-strike from the U.S. and or Israel are misreading this, I believe.
The war with Iran is a game of incrementalism; we see it every day with the media situation about Iraq, but Iran is in a serious financial crunch, which is astonishing when you consider the price of oil these days.
Bush is playing the Reagan card, relying on our economy to win the battle of civilizations. He may be right.
The question is whether Iran’s mullahocracy goes down in a whimper like the Soviets or with a bang.
Or alternatively, U.S. politicians collectively pull a Jimmy Carter and abandon Iraq to go fishing for killer rabbits.
bordersareforwusses on June 25, 2007 at 10:59 PM
big surprise iran is becoming more and more bold because of our appeasement towards them, hmm i thought we saw something like this with hitler and would have learned, guess i was wrong
cougfan on June 25, 2007 at 10:59 PM
This should be no problem. We’ll just use a virtual fence like the one that’s working so well in this country.
imshocked on June 25, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I’m afraid that card won’t work. As long as they have oil and the backing of the neoUSSR and China.
Moscow wasn’t crazy enough to launch a nuke anyway, Tehran is.
reaganaut on June 25, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Ahmawhackjob is trying to get the Iranian people unified about something other than the fact that they hate him. A good, sound bombing by the U.S. would set them on the straight and narrow path (jihad) right quick.
It’s his only out.
Jaibones on June 25, 2007 at 11:07 PM
They are off. Ohhh, you meant our gloves.
TexasDan on June 25, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for it. Take out every anti-aircraft position, every jet, all the airports and all the boats right friggin’ now. Blockade the ports. Woohooo!
Jaibones on June 25, 2007 at 11:09 PM
It’s hard to imagine what Iran might be thinking without more information. Perhaps they are just testing British resolve again. If all that comes of this maneuver is harsh words on our part, (again), their next test will likely be more provocative.
Maybe they’re hoping to capture some more allied hostages. Were there any consequences after they captured the 15 British marines?
Maybe they are hoping to hasten the British departure, or give them a black eye before they leave. They could be trying to draw US forces south, affecting our plans in our area of influence.
There are a lot of negotiations going on all over the world regarding the Middle East, and we probably don’t know the half of it. Perhaps this was just a show of force to strengthen their hand at the table.
Or, perhaps they were simply lost. It seems unlikely, but it could happen.
It will be interesting to see if any more information is released about this occurrence.
FloatingRock on June 25, 2007 at 11:10 PM
It’s the line of death strategy. “If you cross this line then you die.” “If you cross this line you die!”
Problem is who’s doing the threatening?
warpmine on June 25, 2007 at 11:11 PM
They’ll do this–like every other one of their antics for the past several years–with impunity.
Patriot33 on June 25, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Old Bush Doctrine:
Iran is part of the Axis of Evil
Do you mind if I borrow that line? I may need it when describing things to others. :-)
TwinkietheKid on June 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
What I really hate is when the politicos try to say ‘we have no hard evidence’ that the regime is behind actions like this. Every single totalitarian army operates the same way, under orders. There is no unit initiative. None is allow and none is tolerated. If it happens it is because the ‘boss’ ordered it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, King Abdullah, Saddat, Saddam. You go where you are told, when you are told, and do what you are told, period. If this incident happened it is a sure bet the ‘boss’ ordered it.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
So, when will Ted Kennedy and the Royal Navy sing in Farsi?
The U.K. banned a video game because it’s “violent.”
We all know what the Royal Navy is
capableincapable of. It demonstrated to the whole world its…um…courage.Europe is doomed.
America is next unless we do something about it.
Indy Conservative on June 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
So when can we do something? Are we really that undermanned in the area?
unseen on June 25, 2007 at 10:37 PMFour carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. I think we’re covered until a troop transport could put boots on the ground.
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Hmmm….
Lets see… Iran? yep… arming and funding EVERYONE…
Syria massing on the Israeli border? … check…
Hamas taking over?… yeah…
Hezbollah rearmed, and now targeting UN???? uh huh…
Russia, and China, bought off and arming insurgents?… check..
UN totaly disfunctional???? oh yeah….
Total disarray of American Politics?… thanks dems…
If you don’t see the writing on the wall, I can’t help ya.
Romeo13 on June 25, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Radical Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, West Bank, Lebanon, Thailand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Africa along with the crazies in North Korea and South America. Massive islamic imigration in Europe and Scandanavia with governments turning a blind eye. How does the USA address all of these hot beds of turmoil without any allies that have a shred of courage to stand-up to this threat. I am somewhat concerned that we are on the verge of more than just a war on terror – more like a real World War three.
Bereans on June 25, 2007 at 11:23 PM
link is bad sonny
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Four carrier groups link revisited
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:23 PM
If this doesn’t give us all we need to start bombing the hell out of them, what will? When they decide to test their first nuclear bomb in southern Iraq? Their brazenness should be met with, at least, equal brazenness.
thedecider on June 25, 2007 at 11:24 PM
And yet despite our abandonment of South Vietnam nations like Australia, Japan, Poland, Denmark, Britian were still willing to believe in us. We run now there will be not be a nation that will ever trust us again.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Time to start sending cruise missile.
Or at least some special forces to blow up some pipe lines.
mgtanner on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM
The biggest problem with Iran is that it’s being run by the Super Mullah, that semi-mythical “10th Imam” or whatever they hell they call him. He’s hell bent on Armageddon. At this point, it’s the only way he’ll get to Heaven to reap his 72 raisins. The dude has formaldehyde for blood.
Mindcrime on June 25, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I sure hope Australia has it covered.
Nosferightu on June 25, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I’m sure it was only Zionists dressed as IRG troops trying to provoke agression against the Islamic Republic…/sarcasm
Seriously, if this is true, it is indeed troubling as they do seem to have targeted the British due to perceived weakness. If IRG troops are in Iraq we should attack them with extreme predjudice and treat such an incursion as the act of war that it is.
CP on June 25, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I hate Iran, and it’s a hatred and a desire for vengeance that I fear will never be satisfied in my lifetime. Our politicians have done nothing about blatant acts of war from Iran for years. Nothing short of a nuclear attack will change that, I think.
My cousin Charlotte’s husband was one of the five soldiers killed by the Iranian insurgents in the January raid on Karbala. Captain Brian Freeman, father of two children who will know him only through pictures for the rest of their life.
So yeah, it’s personal for me now, and I despise Iran with every fiber of my being. It’s not really healthy for me, because I can’t do anything about it.
And our leaders have shown they won’t do anything about it.
Hawkins1701 on June 25, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Limerick – I am certainly not saying to run – Old George needs to build a coalition that he can depend on. Without Tony Blair – I worry about Great Britain. Australia is a given but what other military power can we feel confident that will stand beside us? Otherwise, the draft will be resurrected. And, if the democrats win the white house in 2008 – I’ll be going down to the nearest gun shop to build my personal arsenal.
Bereans on June 25, 2007 at 11:37 PM
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Yes I know about the Navy assets we have in place. But that still leaves the question why are we stuck on stupid with Iran?
It could be the power play going on between Rice and VP.
IT could also be that Iran has been doing more damage than we are aware of in Iraq, Syria, Gaza and Leb, and Afghanistan.
They may have us stretched very thin in the Middle East and we do not have enough ground forces onsite to keep the peace, and repel Iran, and keep eye on the other hotspots.
Sure we could bomb the hell out of them but can we keep the powder keg from going up?
Is Bush worried about a full scale regional war in the Middle East?
Is he like Carter afraid of Russia coming into the conflict or China? What are theirforce structures like and are they massing any armies in or und the region. And what of Turkey and the Kurds?
I for one can not understand why Bush would cut off his base at the time it looks like all the threats in the Middle East are converging. Any thoughts?
unseen on June 25, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Oh for crying out loud lets bomb them already…sheesh we need Reagan back.
boomer on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Hold on there theoretically we are now surrounded. There are different strains of culture but all Fundamental Islamists. Iran to the north, Syria to the east. Hamas, Hizbola to the South and If you want to get pessimistic Egypt to the Southwest. We could be in a pickel here. If Saudi Arabia wanted to join in we would be drafting those Che garb wearing liberal college folk in a matter of a month.
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
That was my first reaction. No byline. Awkwardly worded. I am skeptical.
RushBaby on June 25, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Sorry if I gave you that impression Bereans. I was trying to expand your point not say you wanted to run. Sometimes (often) my brain says one thing and the keyboard another. :)
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Get some!
csdeven on June 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Muravchik has a interesting take on this exact point at
NRO.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010256
smellthecoffee on June 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Iran’s domestic economy is in the basement, a significant percentage of the population want change and there’s a crackdown on many many thousands of Iranians who might dissent against their highly oppressive policies.
Besides the US media supports Iranian ambitions in Iraq because it would be another black eye for Bush.
Too bad he deserves another one for not being strong enough to get past potentially offending the neighbors.
Ahmadinajhad is praying for an attack that would change the public focus away from the disastrous policies of his administration and hopefully bring help from the neighbors that Bush didn’t dare to offend.
For Bush that means double entendre with the neo Soviets, China and the Saudis providing the duplicitous definitions.
I still say that Syria is the back orifice key to Iran but our administration never did have the cajones or the competence to act on the world stage much less now.
Assad and Ahmadinajhad can be had but Bush can’t get done, not now but Hamas, Hezbolla and Al Quaida operatives he can get them visas.
They just have to promise to be good from now on, doesn’t even have to be Scouts honor.
Speakup on June 25, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Sorry, it’s from Opinionjournal. It was linked from NRO. It’s been too long since I’ve smelled any coffee. . .
smellthecoffee on June 25, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I don’t like it when the amphibious assault ships like Boxer and Iwo Jima are lumped in with carriers. Yes, they have helicopters, and usually a smattering of Harriers. But their purpose is to launch ground assaults supported by limited airpower, not to launch significant airstrikes like the CVN’s.
The main reason this bothers me is that the extent to which it blurring distinction becomes common practice is the extent to which political opponents to the procurement of new CVN’s will be free to misrepresent the actual capablities of the active fleet. If you count the assault ships, it sounds like we have more carriers than ever!
The truth is Naval air of the type afforded by the CVN’s has seen better days. We have the fewest active big-deck ships than we’ve had since WW2, and the air wings are losing some capability due to beancounting concerns. With the S-3 nearly gone, anti-sub and suveillance ops have taken a big hit, and the Superhornet, for all its logistical niceties, is in the end a somewhat sad, make-due replacement for the awesome Tomcat.
Since I expect we’re going to be needing the big CV’s more than ever, I hate to give people any excuse to be confused that they’re getting stretched a bit thin.
Blacklake on June 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Are you kidding me? Isn’t that what the gift-giving was all about when they were released? Not just the strength of the British military, but what about the will? They exhibited none. They have no reason to think the Brits will do anything.
thedecider on June 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:38 Pm
Who is surrounded?
We have Iran surrounded in the Gulf, in Iraq, in Afganistian and in the Indian ocean.
So are we in a Mexician standoff? Each side surrounds the other? Both with strengths and weaknesses. Neither knowing if it has the winning hand in the long run. Each afraid to pull the trigger and find out?
unseen on June 25, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:44 PM
My fault
Bereans on June 25, 2007 at 11:54 PM
I agree with the Democrats – we should re-deploy our troops. To Iran.
jaime on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
It’s only stupid if the US and UK react to it, which is far from a foregone conclusion. If not, then it’s a cunning plan to start taking over southern Iraq sooner rather than later.
corbettw on June 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM
It sounds like a worrying development, if true but i don’t know that it is.
Korblimee
korblimee on June 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Blacklake….
Israel can first strike Iran, even pull a 67 on Assad, but a sustained campaign is out of the question. So what do we do? Will the Saudi’s let the USAF in if Iran closes the straits, or sue for peace? If the Navy is stretched isn’t that our only option? You are the military pro here, help me out.
Limerick on June 25, 2007 at 11:58 PM
for one can not understand why Bush would cut off his base at the time it looks like all the threats in the Middle East are converging. Any thoughts?
unseen on June 25, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Well first off can we assume the opposite. That Iran is converging at a time when thay think The President is cutting off his base. We ‘the base’ are not cut off in terms of the war in Iraq. The President remains Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and has the full support of the base and for that matter the whole party and dare I say some Blue Dog Dems. In a threat percieved as real to our troops, I am certian the Coalition countries would also be engaged. The Rusia?China question is just that a question. I believe this President would engage any threat and I reiterate any threat to the US. Dick Cheney was quoted saying to Musharif the Pakistani leader that the US would bomb them back into the stone age. Lastly, there is a current strategy in place to starve Iran into submission and these border crossings could be a last ditch effort. The Sunni Tribesman from Anbar Iraq came to the table out of ammo and money to fight al Qeada. Pray hard!
sonnyspats1 on June 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Blacklake on June 25, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Has the George H Bush been commissioned yet?
sonnyspats1 on June 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Blacklake,
She is scheduled to be commissioned in 2009.
bnelson44 on June 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
This info is coming from a tabloid newpaper. Tabloid being the key word here..
Legions on June 26, 2007 at 12:07 AM
bnelson44 tabloid right!!
Legions on June 26, 2007 at 12:09 AM
We ‘the base’ are not cut off in terms of the war in Iraq
I have to disagree on this. The immigration fight by the WH has hurt him in the polls. It has also weakened him in Congress. It has enabled Mitt, Fred, and Rudy to move away from him. It has also made the Dems go on the attack. Already their are rumblings from the WH to make peace with the DEMS on Iraq policy.
While I agree that we will rally around the flag during any war, it is never a good idea to go into battle with low morale and a weak hand. This should be the time that the WH is rallying the base, reaching out for those Blue dogs and rattling the sabre. This can not happen while we are in a major fight on immigration.
In other words, He should be preparing the country for a possible war. Not tearing it apart on immigration.
The signs are there that Iran is preparing a major escalation this summer. Should not the President being on the bully pulpit warning of these events?
unseen on June 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
If this is true, there could be an upside insofar as the people of Iran go. I don’t think they’d support this and loonybinajob could be facing a people ready for regim change.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
What the hell are we doing? This is an act of war! Lets start kicking butt and taking names later!
msipes on June 26, 2007 at 12:18 AM
I love to believe that csdeven, really would, but I take the Eisenhower approach on this one. Everybody but everybody was telling him the Wermacht was going to collapse when they hit the Muese and Moselle. One bold stroke would be all it would take. He didn’t fall for it and kept to his broad front stragegy. It was the ‘Fatherland’ at stake and the Wermacht rallied instead. Same term the mullahs use today, ‘Fatherland’. I expect the same outcome from any attack by us.
Limerick on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Yesterday, I heard Dick Durban on the radio saying, “We need to send the message that we don’t want four more years of George Bush’s policies.” But even stupider (and more on topic), he said a few weeks ago, “How long until we end this war?” Myself, I didn’t realize we had that magic wand. But then, I’m not a Democratic senator.
smellthecoffee on June 26, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Jeez, I’m not a military pro. I’m just a bit of a hardware buff, particularly when it comes to airpower. On strategic matters, your guess is about as good as mine. If Iran attempts to close the straights I would assume we have enough naval and airpower in the Gulf or nearby to challenge it and likely shut it down, though.
But I’m pretty sure we don’t have enough force in theater to, say, launch massive, disabling airstrikes against the entire Iranian military and leadership (the “bomb them back to the stone age” approach). I’d think that’d take more of a 1991-style Desert Storm affair, as Iran’s Air Force and air defences are entirely intact. So there’d be a bit of a fight to be had, and while I’ve no doubt who’d win it in a big way, I’d expect to see a rather conspicuous buildup first.
Of course, as the Israelis demonstrated, you don’t need the full might of your air forces to hit an individual target, or, as we demonstrated back in Reagan’s day, to do some significant punitive damage to some littoral assets. I guess that’s another option, though what long-term strategic good it would do, I don’t know.
Blacklake on June 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Don’t cut yourself short. I read all your remarks. Good ol facts and common sense. Enuf hugging………
Without allies….either logistical or militarily we are screwed folks, and running from this threat is a sure way to get neither. Show resolve. That is the only way to win.
Limerick on June 26, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Drudge has a link to the original article:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290279,00.html
“IRANIAN forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys, intelligence chiefs say.”
FloatingRock on June 26, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Oh, sorry, I’ve just noticed that this HA has already updated this thread…
FloatingRock on June 26, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Why is this a surprise?
There should have been a response prepared for just this potentiality. F-16s on standby in Kuwait, 24 hours a day, for just this sort of thing. With a hot-line for the Brits.
Another “failure of imagination”?
We had better be ready for another Iranian martyr wave too. 100,000 morons walking over the border with nothing but Korans.
Didn’t work out too well for Saddam.
Agrippa2k on June 26, 2007 at 12:42 AM
What’s that smell? Is the the obnoxious odor of mendacity coming tomorrow morning when the media reports on why this is happening?
Nothing more powerful then the odor of mendacity!
What we need is a good ol’ fashioned screw-the-french flyover and bomb the living bejeezus out of Iran, until Achmeinliebindude comes out just like Gaddafi – in a wheelchair, head bandaged, and a fudge factory in his pants.
MadisonConservative on June 26, 2007 at 12:48 AM
i think its called shit
American8298 on June 26, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Before I sign off and hit the hay I want to put in my last word…well, not mine…..Dear Mr. Dinnerjacket:
Quigley……’I said I didn’t like six shooters. It didn’t mean I don’t know how to use them.’
Limerick on June 26, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Agrippa2k on June 26, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I have to agree with you. Our leaders seem to have a failure of “imagination.” I guess when you view borders as just a stupid line on a map, stuff happens.
Has PC correctness made our leaders stupid?
Where are the leaders that devised Inchon , D-day, Sicily, North Africa military campaigns.
I wonder if the WH has signed up Dukkais as the war czar?
unseen on June 26, 2007 at 12:55 AM
unseen on June 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Well my friend the US is not the industrial powerhouse we once were. Having moved out of the industrial age firmly into the service industry age has put us in a precarious position if we need to rearm ourselves in the fashion and quantity of a WWII build up. As a matter of fact there was something I read about the selling or outsourcing of a company from either Georgia or Alabama that was the sole provider of a certian mechanical part. I beleive they made crankshafts for military deisels. Well lets just say we as a nation have gone soft, very soft in terms of manual tasks. So we have the capability to push buttons here in the states and fly a preditor drone to the theater. We can fly sorties from carriers without the use of grunts. The colateral damage would be far greater but we are talking of a war of survival here and in such an endeavor preventing colateral damage is not a priority.The other aspect is our lack of available military personel without a draft. I think that along with a large new voting block and a taxpaying labor pool the Congress and President see the illegals as potiential military. So after 40 plus years of abortion and wussification we are in a piss poor state in terms of participation and partiotism. We have alot of pissing and moaning but many more of us need to actively participate in making a change.
sonnyspats1 on June 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM
bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran
Mojave Mark on June 26, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Amen
bnelson44 on June 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Well, we can forget about the Brits; even their Chief of the Defence Staff has gone off the deep end. Pray the Aussies will help us out.
IrishEi on June 26, 2007 at 1:23 AM
sonnyspats1 on June 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM
You do have a point. However, most of the jobs have gone out of country not because Americans do not want to do them but because companies do not want to pay for them. Add to that the fact that our debt, lack of governmental spending restraints and trade imbalances demand a weaker dollar, our country assets are cheap on the world stage. A British pound is worth 2 dollars now and a Euro is worth about $1.30.
But all of these things are due to a certain mindset in Washington. That economics is the way to peace. That the pursuit of money will trump national, religious, and racial interests. This is shown in WTO, immigration, military strategy, UN mandates, etc.
Look at the ports deal. Washington was floored that the American people would see a problem with handing our security over to people that had totally different beliefs than our society. The present immigration debate is the same debate but in different clothes.
The belief that nationalism caused WW2 and the cold war is ingrained in Washington today. After the fall of the USSR there was a decision to turn away from nationalism and to have a “new world order” as Bush 41 stated. This was not a black helicopter moment but it was a historic change in thinking of our leaders. We are seeing the results of that thinking today in Iraq, in Iran, in Europe, in South America and even in Mexico.
Our politicians tell us that 9/11 changed everything but it did not. What it did do was show the lie of the new world order and that borders mattered. Our leaders have not grasped that yet and we are seeing the consequences for that failure.
To make matters worse our leaders think that their world view is the correct one and we the citizens of America are backward, uneducated, natives that do not know what we are talking about.
Who is right? Well the evidence of the last 6 years would suggest that we are.
unseen on June 26, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »