Report: Pentagon worried that Israel doesn’t know where Iran’s nuke sites are
posted at 3:00 pm on July 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
An elaborate ruse, perhaps, cooked up by U.S. and Israeli intel to make Iran think we know less than we do? If so, it’s darned convincing: Adm. Mullen’s comments a few days ago about the inadvisability of an attack sure sounded sincere, and even Joe Lieberman conceded this morning that there’s a “caution light” flashing from the Pentagon in reply to Jack Reed insisting that in fact the light is red. Who’s ready for $12/gallon gas and a Middle East off the hinge in exchange for setting back Iran’s nuke program maybe three years?
Pentagon chiefs fear that Israeli plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme will fail to destroy the facilities because neither the CIA nor Mossad knows where every base is located…
Gaps in the intelligence on the precise location and vulnerabilities of Iran’s facilities emerged during recent talks between Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Israeli generals, according to an official familiar with the discussions who has briefed Iran experts in Washington and London…
“The Americans had spies in Iran until they were rounded up in 2003 and now they do not have much by way of humint [human intelligence] on the ground. The Israelis have better information. But the Americans went away from the meetings unconvinced that the Israelis have enough intelligence on where to strike, and with little confidence that they will be able to destroy the nuclear programme.”
Left unmentioned is the fact that even if Israel does know where every last nuke site in Iran is and somehow manages to put a bomb on the target, there’s no guarantee that any major damage will be done. Do note the contradiction, though, between the idea that attacking Iran is futile because at least part of their nuclear infrastructure is secret and the idea that we don’t need to act now because western intel assures us they’re still years away from having a bomb. Both are staples of dovish arguments, which makes no sense. Either you think we know the extent of Iran’s program and can time our response accordingly or you don’t think we know, in which case we have to err on the side of caution by assuming the worst and acting sooner. How can anti-war types maintain both positions simultaneously? Simple — because they’re willing to let Iran have the bomb in order to avoid another war. That’s been their position all along but they can’t push it in those terms or else they’ll be seen, rightly, as weak and it’ll wreck the Democrats’ chances yet again. Unfortunately for them, Israel isn’t as willing, so someone had really better start pressing Obama and McCain to hash out their contingency plans for the aftermath of an IAF attack. The Democratic Party might be ready to gamble on a nuclear-armed Iran behaving like a Cold War rational actor, but Kadima surely is not.
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]
Yup. That pretty much sums up my feelings, too. To me, the big point in the mishandling of the insurgency was the day those contractors got killed and hung on the bridge and we did nothing. Our response was closed down until after the election and, by then, things had really spun out of control. The left and the media were riding Bush on every scrape that an Iraqi got and Bush was really frozen for a while. I always thought that 9/11 represented a strategic change for the US, meaning that our ROE would change at many levels. Bush always seemed very hesistant to move the ROE’s, except for the smallest, little bits - contrary to the MSM’s portrayal. I don’t think it’s near enough, but we’ll see with Iran, I guess.
Your point on Cheney is right on, in my book.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Oh, and flense….
the article about Israel climbing down and won’t strike without U.S. approval that I listed earlier, but said it would change tomorrow…
Here is TOMORROW
Like I said….keeping the boys in Tehran looking over their shoulder (and between their legs).
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 12:26 AM
True. But it’s for America to use whatever circumstances appear to our advantage. It was not legally the ‘British’, but coalition forces, I believe, of which the US is the main member. We could have done whatever we wanted to with that situation. It was moved in a specific direction and looked very weak.
Yes, this comes down to your estimate of the threat that a nuclear Iran poses. Obviously, I view the threat as much greater than you. Unfortunately, modern Iran has never shown any desire to act like a civilized nation so I don’t know where the rosy estimates are coming from.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I’d like to think that you realise that the person in that link is just some guy offering his opinion, rather like you and me.
I certainly think Israel should act in it’s own best interests, as it sees them. But those may not be our best interests, and there lies the decision. If an Israeli strike on Iran results in an Iranian attack on our forces in Iraq combined with an Iraq revolt against us …… then what?
flenser on July 7, 2008 at 12:36 AM
You’re an odd sort. You mentioned earlier that you are a believer in technological progress. Multiple countries going nuclear as time passes is technological progress. Even in the event that we can somehow prevent Iran from getting the bomb, what about the dozens of other Muslim countries? To say nothing of the non-Muslim enemies we face, who seem to be getting swept under the rug lately.
So no, I think view the threat as much greater then you. It’s innocent optimism to imagine that stopping Iran from going nuclear (for a short period, no less) will remove the danger.
flenser on July 7, 2008 at 12:42 AM
does the fact that Iraq is moving to quell its internal strife give a clue? With the takeover of Mosul, Basara, and Sadr City in the last months the US forces in Iraq are now freed to perform combat operations in other areas. Possibly the Striat. With any attack I would say this land area would be invaded by US forces to repel any iranian advances and to destory the anti ship capabilites of the Iran. I would say a 100 mile radius around the key choke points on the Irian sides would be needed to ensure the Strait stays open. This would enable the Navy to patrol the sea around it without fear of land based attacks. Also the army could make a forward move on the Kuds bases located close to the Iraqi border. Thereby with relative low man power we could knock out two of Iran’s most potent stratgic weapons.
All this could be done with troops freed from the Iraq conflict by the standing up of the Iraqi army.
After this is done than the air force could move in and systemactically attack all know or suspected Nuclear sites When the air force is done. The troops can leave and go back to Iraqi prepared to respond to any Iranian counter attack against Iraq.
It would take years for the Iranian army to re fortify the Striat and millions of dollars. It would also give Iraq time to strengthen its borders and army to repel any Iran invasion.
If the Iran leadership suffers a major defeat and their strongarm men are taken out the people will more than likely turn on the leadership.
Iraq has shown that you must not only take out the leaders but also their armed followers so that the people have a chance to rebel.
If you kill the leaders but leave the followers new leaders will just continue to rise up and control the population by fear and killing. It will be whack a mole all over again.
The main iran army can be left relatively alone. It is the “special unit forces” and the Iran leaders that must be removed.
The middle east if it has shown anything it is that weak leaders who have faced massive defeats on the battlefield do not long survive.
unseen on July 7, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Not at all. I’m pro-gun rights, but I don’t see anything good in handing guns out to mental patients and violent criminals. The arming of certain nations only imperils Mankind’s progress. This is, again, pretty obvious … isn’t it?
Look at the TRILLIONS of petro-dollars have freely flowed through the middle east and islamic world. It was free money. What have they done with it? What do they have left to show for it? If Israel had gotten even a pittance of that, they’d probably have men on the Moon by now. If we in the US had the extra cash, we’d probably have men on Mars. What did they do with that money in the middle east? Extrapolate that from money to nukes. That pretty much seals it for me.
It’s a tough world out there. We have to recognize that the Cold War world was very unique in history. Many people mistook that period for one of normalcy, but it was not. The entire world, almost, was split in two. Luckily, those two were rational and sane - but even so had to carry the threat of total incineration of the other throughout the period (to this very day, even). We do still have strategic nukes, right?
This is a difficult world and it is not for the faint of heart. Unfortunately, the faint of heart vote.
I would do quite a bit more than just stop them from going nuclear. They are going to have to be defanged. But this will not happen so it’s just a matter of waiting for the first big hit and hoping that it’s not in such a strategic place(s) or doesn’t ignite something far more unmanageable. I mean, if Israel is threatened and has to unleash its nukes on Iran (for whatever reason Israel feels), I guess you think that would be an acceptable risk to take in the near-to-mid future?
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 1:04 AM
This is an odd argument as well you are putting forward, US policy is quite clear, no Iranian nuclear program and ability to produce nukes will be acceptable. This is clear with the President, and the congress. You are talking about interests, but my friend you are only highlighting SHORT term interests in your argument, what about this or what about that. Your long term interests would point to the policy I outlined, No Iranian nukes because everyone pretty much understands the Iran is a proliferation nation, the world’s foremost sponsor of terror???
It means that long term (and I mean less than a decade, not decades) terrorists will gain access to the nightmare scenario, nuclear weapons which could be at your cities. If you are talking about oil because it is painful to fill up now, think about the loss to your economy if Atlanta as example disappeared tomorrow. You will have bigger worries than filling up the SUVS. It could end American way of life as you know it. You cannot speak of interests only looking at what your interests are next month, regarding Iraq, oil, whatever.. That is not how America runs its policy, if it did you would not last 10 minutes as a nation nor would any other country be able to conduct itself in this manner.
Do you think it is in Israel’s short term interests to hit Iran? We have every terrorist group on earth on our borders, including Al qaeda in the Sinai, we have enemies all around us looking for an opportunity to rain missiles on our cities - We have been signaling about Iran for years now, your short term thinking leaves me wondering if you cannot see the bigger picture here.
America absolutely requires dominance in the middle east to remain a superpower. In fact the superpowers made the middle east the number one battleground for superdom the last 65 years. If you do not prevent Iran from being able to proliferate, being able to act with impunity, being able to become the regional superpower your days as superpower yourself are likely done within 15 to 20 years.
This is not something you can turn the clock back on, once Iran goes nuclear they are in position for check, not too far from checkmate. Your view makes more sense to me if you believe America can live status quo if Iran is nuclear, is that your view? Because it certainly does not appear to be the view of the Government of the United States at this time.
Iran is the genesis, seat of power, and force behind worldwide fundamentalist Islam, this is a battle that has begun and will outlast both me & you between this force & the west, it is either or, there is no coexistance between these two radically different ideologies, you seem to have totally removed that war from your perspective, I don’t think that is the case personally, if you give this weapon to this force radical Islam, short term, long term we are all very much screwed (the west). Forget destruction of Israel, I am not even referencing it in this response, let’s pretend Israel does not even exist right now — This is America only I am talking about. In America’s estimation you have between 2 to 5 years to act, that is not a lot of time, trust me I know becuase I remember when we felt we had 2-5 years to act, it seems like yesterday.
saus on July 7, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Just like Hitler, huh?
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM
And they just wanted American hostages so they could have someone to party with.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Presidential power -
Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means. If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on July 7, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America
MB4 on July 7, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Mossad and the Israelis aren’t about to share all of their best intelligence with the United States, for the simple reason that they rightly assume that their sensitive information would be leaked to the NYT as a matter of course.
hillbillyjim on July 7, 2008 at 3:27 AM
Now, is this guy a Patreus type or the next msnbc contributor?
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 6:39 AM
I’ve always thought the media built up the iranian military more then they deserved. saddams army was supposed to be the colossus and they were crushed twice without much effort. And they fought the iranians to a standstill. Reagan destroyed the entire iranian navy in a few weeks and they didn’t dare shut down the strait. When it happens I think we will see the iranian military crippled fairly quicky and them run to the un as victims. They will not dare try to close down the strait because their refining capacities will be left untouched in the initial attack and they will be helpless to protect that in a second attack and they know that.
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 6:50 AM
it is called a contingency scenario
and the Pentagon would be remiss if they had no forethought of how to handle every possibility imaginable or unimaginable
Besides, it takes a stupid scenario to make bobama look adequate in contextual contrast; hence the story.
AP/Reuters MSM turn the concept into rock soup. It only tastes as good as what you contribute to it. Meanwhile, the Rothchildesque MSM pursues in perpetuo moto the monopoly on news distribution and their deposit of their bobama into the Oval Office.
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Eisenhower was a diplomat first and foremost. His mark on history was keeping the alliance intact and as coordinated as he could.
Eisenhower did not see eye to eye with Patton, or with MacArthur, either; maybe not even with Nimitz. Patton knew and advised Eisenhower that the USSR had to be deposed in order for WWII to be completed. (MacArthur later advised Truman of the need to finalize the communist abilities to advance in the Korean War.) Eisenhower’s international preferential treatment given British and Russian interests vs. American in his decisions is nothing to brag about, either. Eisenhower set the stage for the Cold War that Truman “lost” or did not “win” but in effect, placated. Kennedy prolonged that Cold War and made things worse by not facing down Nikita Kruschev who to spite Kennedy/USA built the damned Berlin Wall to show that Kennedy had no balls in Europe, just “let’s be nice” talk. The entire Cuban fiasco (missile crisis, Bay of Pigs, ineffective politic/economic policies) was another huge fault of Kennedy.
At least Bush had the balls “about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it” to do just that following the 9/11/01 jihad terrorist attack on America.
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 7:53 AM
You do the same thing as if a madman has been threatening some relative of yours for some time, and finally acts. You help.
Or, if you don’t want to help your relative, you decide in advance what your own interests are with respect to that madman, and then you act.
But what you don’t do is wait for the madman to act, and then ask yourself what your best interests are.
So, leave Israel out of the equation, as my friend Saus suggests, and determine your view of America’s interests vis a vis a nuclear Iran.
(This is where the Paulists and Buchananites fail.)
JiangxiDad on July 7, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Clue: liberals/the Left/MSM want Iran to have nukes.
It’s the “balance of power” you see, to help keep the big bad USA in its place.
They want it.
Halley on July 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
More good news….
Iranian Bomb work continues
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 9:48 AM
A preventive war with Germany would probably have saved a lot of lives.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM
And by the way, we were not attacked by Germany.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
That’s what I’d do.
fossten on July 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
If they’re going to deploy, then refering them to “Murphy’s Laws of Combat” just seems shallow and condescending to me.
Do you ever write anything or do you just cut and paste quotes from other people?
BadBrad on July 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Re: Operation Praying Mantis:
The comparison is that Iran has overtly threatened to disrupt shipping through the Straights of Hormuz should Israel attack. That being the case, it would be unwise to allow any attack–Israeli or otherwise–that does not include a roughly simultaneous attack on Iran’s ability to act in the Straight. Since Israel lacks that capacity, you’re either looking at no Israeli attack, a joint US/Israeli one, or (politically probably more realistic) an “independent” Israeli attack followed up within days or hours by a US/Gulf allies assault on Iran’s naval power.
Simply put, Iran’s ability to mess with Gulf oil shipping is strategically every bit as powerful as a nuclear capability. You can’t forcefully address one without also taking into account the other. Whether that’s done by choice or because a third party like Israel forces your hand, it will nevertheless need to be done.
Blacklake on July 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Limerick:
The Telegraph article talks about nothing other than Iran working on P2 centrifuges. Centrifuges are needed for enriching uranium for nuclear power and are not indicative of a weapons program. The P2 issue has been resolved for over 6 months, when the IAEA found that “Iran’s statements on the content of the declared P-2 R&D activities are consistent with the Agency’s findings. Environmental samples taken at declared R&D locations and from equipment did not indicate that nuclear material was used in these experiments.”
dave742 on July 7, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I believe Iran when they say that or only enriching uranium for nuclear power. When they develope nuclear weapons, they will have lots of power.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Who cares? The IAEA did such a great job with PAK, NPRK, and Syria. Have fun in your bunker dave. Take Twister and Chutes and Ladders with you. Loads of fun.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM
By the way, dave, your buddy Obama has set a goal of a ‘world without fissile material’. Great trick, worthy of Houdini. Let me know how that goal works out.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Obama Feb 29, 2008
that is not the fissile material I knew.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Limerick:
I should be saying that to you. You guys are the paranoid extremists that are afraid of everything. I have no fear whatsoever of all the boogeymen you people are so afraid of.
Look out behind you! It’s a baby duck! It’s probably got a bomb strapped to it!
dave742 on July 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM
RICH!
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
No problem. Life above ground for you will sure be a blast!
PS, I also buy insurance….you know…just in case. Car, home, that kinda hedging my bet. I realize it isn’t for everyone. ‘Laugh and Be Happy’ was a great song, afterall.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Not to worry. No one would ever fly an airplane into the WTC.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Nope, and the way a lot of westerners talk these days about the war on terror, it seems likely that after Pearl Harbor they would’ve claimed that our retaliation should be strictly limited to the Japanese battle fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor. After all, it’s not like all of Japan attacked Pearl, it was only a small group of ships, they would’ve said.
And in the European theater they would’ve asked: Why invade north Africa? North Africa didn’t attack us, Germany did. We should invade Germany proper and not get bogged down in quagmires in Africa, Italy or France.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Ohio-class submarines
The United States has 18 Ohio-class submarines:
14 nuclear-powered SSBNs, each armed with 24 Trident II SLBMs
4 nuclear-powered SSGNs, each armed with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles
Trident II Missile Specs
Range: 9000 miles
Maximum speed: 18,000 mph
Guidance system: inertial, with Star-Sighting
Warhead: nuclear MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle)
This MIRV can contain up to 12 nuclear bombs.
24 X 12 = 288 deliverable nuclear warheads per sub.
14 subs, fully loaded, carry 4032 independently targetable nuclear warheads.
With a range of 9000 miles, the subs can sit in the Gulf of Mexico and still hit Iran.
The Tomahawks can carry nuclear warheads also.
Just 1 class of submarines listed here. Now add up the capabilities of the other sub classes and surface ships.
I’m scared to death concerning Iran. (/sarc)
For the misinformed. >>
“Wiped Off The Map” - The Rumor of the Century
Chimpy on July 7, 2008 at 5:15 PM
(continued)…and why go to war with Japan? Most Japanese are just normal people, moderates, who are going about their daily lives. Same goes for the Germans. No, our response should be limited only to the Japanese battle fleet that attack Pearl, and only to them. The other parts of the Japanese navy weren’t involved in the attack, they might be attacking other nations but they didn’t attack us. (Corollary to the various Jihad groups not bearing the title of Al Qaeda.)
FloatingRock on July 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM
But do not.
Blacklake on July 7, 2008 at 5:25 PM
And our first armed battle in North Africa was against Frenchmen!
Libs of today dream of the possible headlines that were missed in that war … if only they had existed then …
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Chimpy you can have as many nuclear weapons as you like, it will not deter a terrorist committed to murdering as many people as possible, you know you also have 1000’s of jets in America, it did not stop terrorists from employing jets to kill Americans, your own in fact. You have many boats, but they still used boats to attack the USS Cole, should I go on?
This is all big talk, but according to Assmad himself today you are scared out of your wits. Look it up, but not on globalresearch.ca the most well known ‘pseudo’ leftwing ‘reasearch’ site on the net. Only a fool would boast of having thousands of nuclear weapons, that solves nothing when faced with a culture that glorifies mass suicide to murder Americans & Jooz.
Every week in state wide sermons, written by the govt in Iran, the same sermon is read across Iran in all mosques on friday - they call for death to America, and cheer by the tens of thousands “death to America”. The only misinformed person is you.
saus on July 7, 2008 at 6:09 PM
So, let’s have the entire ME bow down to their Islamic overlords, and who really cares if 6 million Jews are annihilated too. After all, its just my pocket I’m really concerned about.
Bravo!!! AP. You stay classy.
Andy in Agoura Hills on July 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Limerick:
Con Coughlin, the author of the Daily Telegraph article that is paraphrased by the J. Post article you site, has a long history of propaganda and false sources. Much of his writing is geared toward an attack on Iran.
Never mind.
Look out! There’s a puppy behind you!
dave742 on July 7, 2008 at 7:18 PM
They are no good in tacos. Not bad with a ka-bob though.
So when Iran gets the bomb, dave, will that mean you were right or wrong all along?
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Limerick:
When Iran gets the bomb, I promise to stop posting here. I’ve made promises to stop posting for other reasons, but I always seem to be right, so I am still here. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
dave742 on July 7, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Exactly. How the hell did an egyptian muslim get put in charge of making sure islamic nations don’t develop nuclear weapons? Have I woken up in an alternative universe?
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Remember when your father used to call you a big dope?
He was right.
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 10:25 PM
saus on July 7, 2008 at 6:09 PM
You are confusing AQ/Sunni/Wahhabism stateless groups with the Shiite country of Iran.
The Iranians helped the US topple the Taliban who gave refuge to the real terrorist. Then after they were no longer useful Bush included Iran in “the axis of evil” instead of forging more cooperation. You are uninformed on history and current events.
I suggest you learn about US involvement/meddling in Iran starting with the US engineered coup in 1951 to overthrow a democratically elected government and installed the Shah who brutalized the Iranians with his intelligence agency, SAVAK(trained by the US),to keep power. Then you need to study the day by day reports while the Shah was in exile. The Iranians wanted to try him for crimes against the people just like the Iraqi’s did with SH. When the US let him enter the country the Iranians thought what happened in 1951 was going to happen again.
The US also backed SH when he invaded Iran and used WMD’s on them.
If the situation were reversed, tens of millions US citizens would be shouting “death to Iran”.
Chimpy on July 7, 2008 at 10:27 PM
“America, Love it or leave it.”
A timeless statement as true now as it ever was.
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM
By the way, are you a lackey of the iranian government?
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 10:31 PM
The US pursued a policy that called for a stalemate between Iraq and Iran. That was the correct policy, as stopping the Iran-Iraq war was one of the bigger diplomatic mistakes of the 20th century. It was only a couple of years after that war was stopped that Iraq decided to turn towards Kuwait. It’s only a shame that Iran and Iraq couldn’t have beaten the crap out of each other for another decade.
Right … The US isn’t big into rallies calling for “Death to ____”. But, the fact that you think Americans would react the same as Iranians pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Chimpy,
Meddling? That wasn’t meddling. THIS is meddling.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM
But Sadam did not have WMD.
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Nice of your friend saus to tell us that, seeing as he’s not American. As for America’s interests, we already live with a nuclear Pakistan. And we’re currently supporting Sadia Arabia getting nuclear power plants.
You people are trying to hold back the tide. Nuclear proliferation cannot be prevented, short of an American global dictatorship. Time to start pondering the implications of that.
flenser on July 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Germany declared war on the United States after their ally Japan attack the United States.
MB4 on July 7, 2008 at 11:47 PM
You sound like someone who has never deployed.
A lot. Too much for some folks.
I do some of that too. If you don’t like it, tell it to the chaplain.
MB4 on July 7, 2008 at 11:51 PM
So do you think that Iran will attack Israel when they get the the bomb or are the Iranians just using empty rhetoric?
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Nations like Russia? China?
The reality is that it’s not a question of “arming” certain nations. As they pass a certain technological threshold they develop the ability to go nuclear on their own. And that threshold is getting lower as time passes.
Your economic views are rather left wing. Nobody gets to instruct others on how best to spend their money.
That did not answer my question, which was “how do we stop other countries from making nuclear weapons”. If your veiled remarks meant “lets use our nukes to blast them before they can get theirs”, then you are way out of touch with the political reality in this country. You are politically naive. We can set aside for now the question of your morality.
You have some grandiose ideas. I’m not sure who you think will carry them out though.
As I already indicated, I think Israel needs to do whatever it sees as in its best interests. Beyond that I don’t really have an opinion. You’re Jewish I take it?
It’s very possible that an attack on Iran will set light to the whole Middle East tinderbox. At that point I’d favor America doing what is in it’s best interests and walking away.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:04 AM
I was deployed in a war we were not allowed to win.
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Do think that they would leave us alone if we walked away.
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Quick! Run to your homes! Lock your doors! Pull the blinds! Pay no attention to the screams!
Glad I don’t live in your America flense. Glad, also, I never will.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I’m glad also, Limerick. Now, if there was only some way to get you physically out of the country …
I don’t know what country you are loyal to, but it sure as hell is not this one.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:35 AM
But flense, you stated before you would like to see DeMint elected as the President. Do you think DeMint would ‘walk away’? I sure don’t believe he would. Now Paul might. No, Paul would.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Read my comments on this page. I’m not willing for America to become what you people want it to be - a global dictatorship. If some people in the world want to behave badly, that is their right. If they want to follow us here, that is their problem.
Mind you, we’re doing our best at present to invite the world here.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:38 AM
I’ve noticed that thinking is not your strong suit. I believe that he’d put America ahead of the rest of the world, which is what an American politician is supposed to do.
You can act out your peculiar fantasies on your own dime.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Just reminding you of your own pick. Seems an odd choice to pick as President for an isolationist.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Chimpy, All those groups, are islamic fundamentalist groups. All of them want to see an Islamic caliphate, all of them ascribe to strict adherence to fundamentalist religious Islam, all wish to see political religious Islam as the only form of govt, all of them obtain support from the State of Iran. There are senior AQ members protected in Iran by Iran’s theocracy, the US asked for them & was denied.
Hamas is sunni & an Islamic Fundametalist group.
Al Qaeda is sunni & an Islamic Fundamentalist group.
Hezbollah is shiite and an Islamic Fundamentalist group.
Iran is Shiite and an Islamic Fundamentalist country.
The Taliban were also an Islamic fundamentalist government before being toppled.
Chimpy, Islamic Fundamentalist is the 1st line in the encyclopedia in reference to these groups, and that country Iran - I don’t want to seem rude or make it seem like I am trying to attack you, but you should not throw terms around like wahabiism because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, which is fine, because these are complex subjects and indeed confusing.
Iran had the world’s only Islamic revolution to become the first Islamic fundamentalist nation state. Iran is Shiite, yet supports Hamas which is sunni in every way, Just as Al Qaeda is sunni, yet garners support from shiite Hezbollah which was created by Iran as a proxy. They are all tied to Iran in their philosphy. The co-founder of Al Qaeda Zawahiri was an Islamic fundamentalist cleric from the Islamic Jihad / Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist wahabi from Saudi Arabia, ’so what’ is the point - They share 100% common cause. One is Wahhabi, one is not. The common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism.
Iran’s population chants death to America
Hezbollah’s supporters chant death to America
Hamas supporters chant death to America
Al Qaeda supporters chant death to America.
They all ascribe to the exact same Islamic philosophy, it is Islamic fundamentalism, this is not opinion sadly.
They all support, ascribe to the use of mass murder / violence as a political tool, they all actively support martyrdom & suicide attacks, they all support the use of civilians for murder & shielding themselves. Iran boasts it has 50,000 civilian suicide bombers ready including women. They all want to topple the West. They all seek the destruction of Israel & the destruction of America.
Iran refers to Israel as the little Satan, America as the Big Satan. Non of this is unfortunately my opinion, I wish it were.
saus on July 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Have I pointed out recently that you are a moron? There is a world of difference between putting Americas interests ahead of those of other countries, and being an isolationist. Too bad those Catholic priests never taught it to you. You were steeped in left-wing mumbo-jumbo from an early age.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Sorry flense, strike three. My ears aren’t even red yet.
Your ‘walking away’ statement is what it is. Leave people to the wolves. Isolationism by any other name is still isolationism.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 1:00 AM
It’s not for us to save the world, my left-wing globalist friend. If you feel like trying that task go ahead and let me know how it works out.
And it’s pretty obvious that anything short of a US Army division in every country on Earth counts as “isolationism” in your eyes. The truth is that there is a middle ground somewhere between isolationism and your fantasy of America bestriding the world like a colosuss dispensing your idea of justice to all the worlds people at the point of a gun.
I’d heard that there were some pretty far left priests working in the catholic Church and you seem to have been indoctrinated by one.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM
And Marxist-Catholicism is still Marxist-Catholicism.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Strike four! That’s ok, I’ll spot you some extra swings. T-ball if you need it.
Strike five! T-ball it is then.
Sorry flense. I no more believe in a division in every country then I believe you are not an isolationist. I just don’t believe in leaving my friend to the wolves.
Keep trying on the religion angle though. You only have a few hundred thousand sects to work your way through.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 2:04 AM
G’nite flenser. Practice that swing a bit.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 2:22 AM
I was deployed in a war that could not have been won at an exceptable cost and should never have been entered into in the first place.
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
Norman Podhoretz, who believes that American intervention in the Vietnam War was “an attempt born of noble ideals and impulses,” has concluded that “the only way the United States could have avoided defeat in Vietnam was by staying out of the war altogether.” His judgment, in retrospect, appears to be as reasonable as any. The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater, and the US decision to fight there in the 1960s was driven by a doctrine of containing communism that in the 1950s was witlessly militarized and indiscriminately extended to all of Asia. Bernard Brodie observed in the early 1970s that “it is now clear what we mean by calling the United States intervention in Vietnam a failure. . . . We mean that at least as early as the beginning of 1968 even the most favorable outcome . . . could not remotely be worth the price we would have paid for it.” The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97
Also read H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”
MB4 on July 8, 2008 at 2:56 AM
fossten on July 8, 2008 at 9:21 AM
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Just what I expected.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM
The first part of your reply reminds me of Dr Strangelove. The second part doesn’t take into consideration that the majority of the comments in this thread or any thread on HA about Iran, basically say “death to Iran”. Are you saying if Iran engineered a coup in the US, that US citizens would passively except that with no complaints?
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM
So if Iran engineered a coup in the US that wouldn’t be meddling?
Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Cute, but stupid.
saus on July 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Unfortunately most of what you say is your opinion and doesn’t stand up to this.>>
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue
Washington ’snubbed Iran offer
Chimpy on July 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM
They have already been here, 9-11.
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM
First the left says that were no WMD and now they say there were WMD, which is it?
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Yes, yes, yes. Wounded Knee was a terrible black eye also.
Your vision of the world is interesting. In your world everyone is a rational actor. Sounds like a wonderful place to live but Iran has only one intent, acquire the bomb. All of her stated ‘goals’, power, technology etc have been offered to her on a silver platter by the west. She would have all the electricity she claims she needs, all the technological know-how to put her in the 21st Century, and the ability to operate her economy to benefit her people. She chose bombs over all that. There is no ‘rational’ explanation for her to continue. It costs her more, and gains her less, then to accept the world’s offer.
So be it. Her choice, now she has to live(or die) with it.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Why does this need constant repeating?
Iran’s rulers are trying to fulfill what they believe is
their religious destiny. Hojjatieh Shiism believes in an
apocalyptic “savior” called variously “the hidden imam”,
“the 12th imam” or the “missing imam”. In their fantasy, at
the end of days, this dude will return and enforce
(by military conquest of course) islam on the whole world.
This dud is only going to bob up after widespread death
and destruction is widespread on Earth, and Hojjatieh Shiism
believes it is the duty of man to establish this precondition
for the return.
The nuclear weapons are not some bargaining chip. They are
meant to be used.
Perhaps people who grew up in, or at least heard of the cold
war think that it would be insane for a country to assure
it’s own total destruction by pressing the nuke button
against the West.
The assumptions of mutual assured destruction don’t grip a
country that believes in the total martyrdom of it’s
entire population.
Make no mistake. When Iran has a dozen or two bombs,
they will use t hem.
If the West is stupid enough to allow that to happen, it
will be the greatest failure of will since the 1930s.
Israel may act on it’s own and all the above may be about
setting up plausible deniability. We should know soon.
davem on July 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Yep!
Trying to stop Iran without force is like trying to stop a bear from attacking you by showing it your Sierra Club card.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
You said you were Catholic, though you may have been lying. And your left-wing view point comes through lond and clear.
You don’t know what the word “isolationist” means. To you, it’s like “fascist” or “Nazi” - just another substitute for a four letter word, a way of saying “I don’t like you”.
But I’m interested to hear that you don’t believe in a division in every country. Only in the Middle Eastern ones it seems.
You sure are a big fan of force. Where does the Pope stand on that?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
LOL. Strike six! Even T-ball doesn’t seem to help.
I’ll broadcast the pitch to help a bit…
Mother was Catholic. Father was Southern Baptist. Keep digging…you’ll figure it out eventually.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
It seems I’ll have to, since you are clearly terrified of simply telling me. Not sure what your hangup is here. If you are not a Catholic, stomp your foot once. If you are, stomp your foot twice.
Is that easy enough for you?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Where in the hell did I say SH never has WMD’s? My position is there were no WMD’s in Iraq when the current administration said there was as a pretext for invading Iraq.
August 22, 1995: High Level Defector Secretly Reveals Iraq’s WMD Program Has Ended
Do yourself a favor and read the whole timeline(at the link above), of the disinformation that the Bush admin tossed out to gullible people such as yourself.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Iran’s intent is to develop nuclear powered electric generating plants. They want to enrich their own uranium so they are not hostage to superpower whims. If China asks the US to stop enrichment on the condition they will supply it for us, do you think that would be a good idea for us to accept that offer?
Chimpy on July 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]