Posted on 09/11/2007 9:37:54 AM PDT by Fennie
An 80-page study written by two British security analysts and released on August 28 makes a chilling estimation of the overwhelming force that the US would use in the event of any attack on Iran. "The US has made military preparations to destroy Iran's WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George W. Bush giving the order," the paper declared...
So what’s the holdup?
SittinYonder warns British academics may have their heads up their a$$e$ and no clue what’s happening or not happening in the real world.
Heads up the a$$e$ or not, they'd better be right.
You know, if President Bush were really smart, he would follow President Lincoln’s political example at the outset of the Civil War by provoking the Iranians into declaring war on us and then in turn blasting them with everything we’ve got.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Let’s use some of our neat hardware and technology to do a “Razzle Dazzle” quick blitz and see if they change their minds.
trying to NYT a warning to the enemy.
I’ve been waiting and hoping for this to happen since Jimmy Carter turned his back on our American citizens that were taken hostage by the Iranians.
So let’s do it.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock.
yawn
I heard the Shock and Awe was going to be on Britain to save them from the coming mooslime takover. /s
The have declared war on us but only by proxy.
They are ... this was a pre-emptive pr strike ;-) — a don’t mess with them and give it up, type thing.
Hmmmmmm, Iran or North Korea? Decisions, decisions...
Since we are still technically at war with NK, it doesn’t require an act of Congress...
Fighting the enemy with newsclipping and planted stories isn’t as satisfying as using ‘splosives.
Hey, if this messes with the heads of Ahmadangnutjob and co., I'll take it :)
Note to Iranian squirrels: Incoming!!!
I agree. What are we waiting for? They are killing Americans and they cannot get away with it.
If Jorge does not carry through on this, he will have been
derelict in his duty to defend this country.
CAUTERIZE IRAN NOW !!
Maybe not, but it's close. Case in point:
Bwah hah hah hah hah....
“I heard the Shock and Awe was going to be on Britain to save them from the coming mooslime takover.”
Shhhh! Loose lips sink Medieval Theme Park and Elizabethan Resort plans.
Gee, and I thought we’d just blockade Iran. Go figure!
I sure hope we are.
Thank God he's controlling the borders!
No, shock and awe is what happened when a London bus got blown up by someone raised in Britain. Everybody knows Iran is going to get whacked. Awe? Maybe. Shocked? Only the idiots.
You have to hope President Bush jumps ugly with Iran cause who knows who or what the next president may do or be.
Iran needs an ass whoopin.
I’ve always been of the philosophy that if you are not achieving the results you want, change something. If you are achieving the results you want, keep doing the same thing. I wouldn’t mind a change, since Iraq has not been giving us the results we want. I vote to implement the terrifying plan against Iran.
I should hope so. If the Pentagon were not developing such a plan, they should be court-martialed.
BUMP
Anybody who can read a map should understand the strategic importance, especially in light of the larger war on terror, of why we fight to control Iraq.
I would hope so.
Think about it folks, taking out the mullahs in Iran is the old Texas Ranger lynch mob pacification tactic, blast the most vocal leader with two barrels of double 00 buck and the rest of the sheep will run away bleating. Syria gonna stop us? No chance. Egypt? Saudi? UAE? OBListan? This would effectively end all of their “back to the stone age” bluster. The economy has got me in a bad mood, I say off with their heads what have nothing to lose.
Plesch and Butcher analysed the available types of US bombers and conventional bombs and calculated that 100 strategic bombers, each with 100 “smart” bombs, would be enough to hit 10,000 individual targets. “This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military, economic and transport capabilities,” the authors conclude. “Such a strike would take ‘shock and awe’ to a new level and leave Iran with few if any conventional military capabilities to block the straits of Hormuz or provide conventional military support to insurgents in Iraq.”
And this does not count other air force and naval assets, nor tactical systems such as MLRS that are within range.
These mutts have killed hundreds of Americans directly and thousands indirectly over the past 28 years; I’d call it a just response.
If the mad Mullahs get their hands of a nuclear devise, and the means to deliver, no doubt they will use it.
The only question is who, and when, will stop them.
Silly me, I always thought that invading another sovereign nation's embassy and holding the staff hostage for over a year was an act of war.
Or how about sending fighters into Iraq to fight US forces there? I think there is cause enough right now.
The "Powell doctrine" holds that the US should go to war only as a last resort and then only with overwhelming force
What are they whining about?
Here’s what I’ve been pushing for, and it sounds like it’s partially coming true.
We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.
The Pentagon always has these strategies at the ready, not only against Iran but all our enemies, immediate or potential. Even though this is not news, it makes me smile when I picture the expression on Ahmadicklesschap's face as he is reminded of his future.
I know they have the plans, they’ve had them since the fall of the Shah.
Its kinda amusing two brits just realized it, and think its ‘new’....(chuckle)
And they wonder why the sun set on the Empire....
No Sh!T, Sherlock! It’s called war-planning, and we’ve got lots of ‘em! (Maybe even one for you guys, if we have to) Most of them never get used, but they give us a good starting point if world conditions suddenly call for one of them.
Shock and awe implies a pause. I would like to see shock and shock.
Breaking things, and killing people, is the job description of the military.
Ours is uniquely qualified. ;-)
Yeah, shock and awe. Listen I wish it were so. But, we know that this is from the lefty wussies who are soooooo afraid that we might upset Muslims and since Muslims are shocking and frightening Englishmen right now on their little island, the USA once again would be the bad , bad, evil nation attacking the Iranian thugs! Can you imagine the Dems if this happened. They would immediately impeach Bush and of course, the media would shake its head. No, no attacks are coming and if they do, Bush will go to the head of any class of brave leaders.
I think the easier way to end all this would be to leave the area entirely.
The Iranian Mullahs will complete their nukes and take Iraq, Kuwait, the Gulf States and Western Afghanistan. The U.S. will stay out of any disputes there and not pledge to defend the Saudis. The Saudis will buy their nukes from Pakistan.
They’ll have a big nuke showdown (Saudis and Pakis against the “Persians”).
The result will be a safer world for everyone else, and the U.S. will be neither the victim or the perpetrator.
An “international commission” can be set up to help the radioactive survivors climb back from the stone-age, with all their former political and religious leaders now dead or in “international custody”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.