Iran has now asked the United Nations to put a stop to the American attacks on al-Sadr’s forces in Najaf. We seem to be losing our nerve there, not willing to attack the mosque.
Al-Sadr’s forces have also risen in Basra against the British. How long before Iran tells the British to give up?
It seems that the enemy has used the media focus on the Olympics to partially cover their latest moves to firmly entrench their forward forces in Iraq.
Once these Olympics are over, Iraq will have a completely different military and political landscape.
Iran has now asked the United Nations to put a stop to the American attacks on al-Sadr’s forces in Najaf. We seem to be losing our nerve there, not willing to attack the mosque.
Al-Sadr’s forces have also risen in Basra against the British. How long before Iran tells the British to give up?
It seems that the enemy has used the media focus on the Olympics to partially cover their latest moves to firmly entrench their forward forces in Iraq.
Once these Olympics are over, Iraq will have a completely different military and political landscape.
Nah Al Sadr’s forces are being routed, they are uncapable of meeting US forces in battle so they have to hide in the Masq if they want to survive. There are some 1500 of them held up in the Masq. No food is getting into the Masq, they are going to die from malnurishment, blow the Masq up with all their followers inside, fire at our troops(In which case we call in an air strike), or they will surrendur. Anyway you look at it, a crap load of militants are going to be either dead or detained.
"Q … The Iranian defense minister today, he said that the generals, other officials are getting nervous about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, that the doctrine of preemption is not solely an American doctrine. I wonder what your reaction to that is?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the Iranians say a lot of things. But what the Iranian government needs to do is end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s what our priority is when it comes to Iran. We’ve made that very clear. Germany, France and the British are making it very clear to the Iranians, as well. They need to fully comply with their international obligations and abide by what they said they would do. That’s where our focus is, when it comes to Iran."
Can you believe that? Iran threatens to attack us, and Bush’s press secretary can only think to say: “Well, I think the Iranians say a lot of things.”
Give me a friggin’ break!
And notice that our priority with Iran is not ending their sponsorship of terrorism, but convincing them to end their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Well, the Iranians have already insisted that nuclear weapons are against their religious beliefs. So I seriously doubt we are going to get anywhere on that issue.
"Q … The Iranian defense minister today, he said that the generals, other officials are getting nervous about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, that the doctrine of preemption is not solely an American doctrine. I wonder what your reaction to that is?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the Iranians say a lot of things. But what the Iranian government needs to do is end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s what our priority is when it comes to Iran. We’ve made that very clear. Germany, France and the British are making it very clear to the Iranians, as well. They need to fully comply with their international obligations and abide by what they said they would do. That’s where our focus is, when it comes to Iran."
Can you believe that? Iran threatens to attack us, and Bush’s press secretary can only think to say: “Well, I think the Iranians say a lot of things.”
Typical response from a multiculturalist-trained minion in government :dough:
Give me a friggin’ break!
And notice that our priority with Iran is not ending their sponsorship of terrorism, but convincing them to end their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Well, the Iranians have already insisted that nuclear weapons are against their religious beliefs. So I seriously doubt we are going to get anywhere on that issue.
Who thinks Iran will officially attack us?
Best approach is reconnaisance, to see if Iran is actively mobilizing. If reconnaisance clearly shows this, then America is justified in attacking Iran.
Alternatively, America should issue an ultimatum to Iran 1) to immediately surrender terrorists they have been harboring AND 2) to immediately cease, desist, and destroy the nuclear plants they are building.
Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy administrations were all skilled in handling such crises.
“Now Iran is threatening preemptive attacks against the U.S. if they feel that we are about to bomb their nuclear facilities.”
I’d rather have america pre-emptively attacked via a plane/bomb or some shite missile than a fission bomb…
by the way, iran DID mobilize it’s troops on the iraq/iran border a few months back, but quickly backed off. forget the reasoning, but i do recall it being more than just ‘exercises’.
The Iranians are in no position to launch an attack into Iraq. In order to reach the vast majority of our forces they would have to travel through mostly open desert. This means we can easily track their movements and completly decimate their forces. I doubt once full divisions start getting whiped out from the air they would persue the campaign.
I say let them attack, once we destroy their army in Iraq there will be nothing stoping us from overthrowing the Government.
An interesting objection has been made regarding Praxus’s post with the big JDAM picture, namely that “thinking in pictures” should be avoided because it is implicitly anti-intellectual.
I agree that pictures are, generally speaking, not suitable as a sole means of reasoning or communication, but I think they can often be useful as an accompaniment of a verbal train of thought. As far as the specific post in question is concerned, Praxus did make a remark for which the picture served as an illustration, so I do not think his post can be criticized as an attempt to “think in pictures.”
One might rather object on the basis that his post did not have much intellectual content, or that it did not address the topic of the thread (namely, MisterSwig’s contention that the administration is too faint-hearted to raid the mosque)–but Praxus did just that in his first post on this thread, so I am willing to cut him some slack here.
Can you believe that? Iran threatens to attack us, and Bush’s press secretary can only think to say: “Well, I think the Iranians say a lot of things.”
I don’t think it’s such a bad response. Its implication is: “The Iranians may say what they want, but we won’t be intimidated.” Especially if you consider his next sentence:
But what the Iranian government needs to do is end its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
I should add that if you think McClellan’s reaction sucks, wait until you hear Kerry’s press secretary respond to questions like that.
Q … The Iranian defense minister today, he said that the generals, other officials are getting nervous about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, that the doctrine of preemption is not solely an American doctrine. I wonder what your reaction to that is?
MR. McLIB: We need to sit down with the Iranians and negotiate in order to resolve this conflict in a peaceful and diplomatic way. Secretary General Annan has already indicated his willingness to serve as an arbitrator in multilateral talks aimed at arriving at a solution that takes into account the interests of all parties involved. President Kerry is considering the idea of involving former President Clinton and Palestinian King Yasser in the negotiations, who have previously participated in brokering a land-for-peace deal that might serve as a model for solving our current problem with Iran. blah blah blah blah world peace blah blah blah international blah blah blah understanding blah blah blah diplomacy blah blah blah reach out blah blah…
An interesting objection has been made regarding Praxus’s post with the big JDAM picture, namely that “thinking in pictures” should be avoided because it is implicitly anti-intellectual.
Ok I won’t do it anymore, but why is it anti-intellectual. Does it really matter how one displays their thoughts. I thought that thinking is the intellectual part, how you send thoose thoughts to others is irrelivent.
Ok I won’t do it anymore, but why is it anti-intellectual.
Read my post carefully. I said an objection was raised (via “Report Post”) and I gave my reasons for DISagreeing with that objection. I don’t mind if you post pictures as long as you are using them as an illustration of a point you make (as you did), so as far as I’m concerned, jes’ keep postin’ em!
who have previously participated in brokering a land-for-peace deal that might serve as a model for solving our current problem with Iran. blah blah blah blah world peace blah blah blah international blah blah blah understanding blah blah blah diplomacy blah blah blah reach out blah blah…
The Iranians are in no position to launch an attack into Iraq…I say let them attack, once we destroy their army in Iraq there will be nothing stoping us from overthrowing the Government.
Over in Political Philosophy there’s a discussion about our Grand Strategy, and the problems with focusing on Big Armies.
I don’t disagree that wiping out Iran’s army would be a good thing to do, but I’m convinced that doing so will not have the result that “there will be nothing stoping us from overthrowing the Government”
I don’t disagree that wiping out Iran’s army would be a good thing to do, but I’m convinced that doing so will not have the result that “there will be nothing stoping us from overthrowing the Government”
Does anybody know how strong irans military is?Or what kind of military they have?
If they do invade they are defenitly gonna use some asymatrical tactics in some way,especially after what they haveseen in iraq. Maybe infiltrate with 4GW forces first and then attack with a conventional force.
Does anybody know how strong irans military is?Or what kind of military they have?
If they do invade they are defenitly gonna use some asymatrical tactics in some way,especially after what they haveseen in iraq. Maybe infiltrate with 4GW forces first and then attack with a conventional force.
Iran’s military is massive, but they aren’t very well trained and they have old equipment. Nothing a month long air campaign can’t handle.
As far as the ground goes we would need at least 400,000-500,000 troops. Iran is many times bigger then Iraq and much more rugged. So you can’t go in with 120,000 troops and hope things turn out alright.
Iran’s military is massive, but they aren’t very well trained and they have old equipment. Nothing a month long air campaign can’t handle.
As far as the ground goes we would need at least 400,000-500,000 troops. Iran is many times bigger then Iraq and much more rugged. So you can’t go in with 120,000 troops and hope things turn out alright.
If they are weak then they will not fight a conventional war and if we do engage them we better be VERY prepared, becuase when a second generationarmy fights a fourth generations army, things are never pretty for the state.
Just look at this Article, everytime we reverted to 2GW (Attrition warfare) Al Qaeda got the upper hand on us .
"We are a 2GW military trying to fight a 4GW. Before we can begin to learn to fight a 4GW, we must first learn to fight 3d Generation Warfare (maneuver warfare). We have to revive the teaching of maneuver warfare in the schoolhouses. We have to practice maneuver warfare in the training areas. We have to conduct maneuver warfare wherever possible on the battlefield – before we can ever learn to cope with 4GW. Can we adapt? How long will it take? Who will lead? "
The world no longer needs to worry about the Iranians, because President Bush just said that “they won’t have a nuclear weapon.”
O’REILLY: Iran. Uh, said yesterday, hey, we’re going to develop this nuclear stuff, we don’t care what you think. You ready to use military force against Iran if they continue to defy the world on nuclear?
PRESIDENT BUSH: My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically.
O’REILLY: But if you can’t.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, let me try to solve it diplomatically first. All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option.
O’REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?
PRESIDENT BUSH: We, we are working our hearts out so that they don’t develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.
O’REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Uh, no, we’ve made it clear, our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon.
The next question should have been “If Iran continues its nuclear program, will you order an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?” I wonder if Bush would have said “yes.”
I said an objection was raised (via “Report Post”) and I gave my reasons for DISagreeing with that objection. I don’t mind if you post pictures as long as you are using them as an illustration of a point you make (as you did), so as far as I’m concerned, jes’ keep postin’ em!