Gotta do something to pull the Republicans out of the election tank.
Interestingly, while searching for a photo for this post, I stumbled on this article from almost a year ago.
Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
#60
> 1) Iran and Israel are allies.
Proof?
RE: 2
Proof that Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons?
RE: 4
The US is also only protecting its interests. However, it is amazing how many problems arise when those interests conflict. Iran has, for many years, been one of, if not the, biggest provider of terrorism in the world. Many felt that going into Iraq was a mistake because Iran was the real supporter of terrorism. Iran was been supplying terrorists in Iraq for sometime and those terrorists are doing a pretty good job of threatening US soldiers and personnel.
#60 Steve, and you said China was ‘Godless’…what about the US of A?
“America is the #1 proliferator of weapons to the world. Shocker eh? Whats worse is that we sell them to people that shouldn’t own them”
Cheers
#61 “Sure, we twice defeated Iraq’s Army in a month.”
Wouldn’t once do the job? If it was twice then it didn’t happen the first time.
And what kind of measure is the Iraq Army anyway?
Cheers
#64
> Wouldn’t once do the job? If
> it was twice then it didn’t happen the first time.
So…we didn’t defeat the German army in WWII because we did it in WWI?
> And what kind of measure is the Iraq Army anyway?
At the time of Desert Storm I, they were one of the largest in the world.
#64 Ok I now understand what was meant by of defeating the Iraqi army twice. I misread what was said – I read that it was defeated twice in a month meaning ONE month for both times. I was wrong
As for what kind of measure is the Iraqi army, the second time around was just a shadow of its former self.
>At the time of Desert Storm I, they were one of the largest in the world.
Large only on paper. You cannot compare the Iraqi Military as a near equal to the force thrown at it. North Korea’s Army is also one of the largest in the world…however…
With all of the US military might…what is taking so long? I have no idea – I am not there to see for my self.
Cheers
#66
> With all of the US military might…what
> is taking so long? I have no idea – I
> am not there to see for my self.
Ah, see that is what I was getting at when I said that militarily, we really don’t have an equal. Winning a war requires more than military might. It requires political savvy to ensure a final resolution and it is *that* aspect that the US has proven itself lacking. Vietnam is the prime example. We never lost a major engagement in Vietnam and yet we lost the war. The reasons for losing the war had nothing to do with military efficiency or might but rather political mistakes. It is politicians that both start wars and end them; not soldiers.
#67 – Agreed. A another example perhaps is WWII…Germany could have won if Hitler let his Generals do their job.
Cheers
#68
Both true and not true. Hitler’s generals, being career military men, were hesitant about taking chances and making mistakes (much like any large bureaucracy). It was Hitler that realized that recent innovations had changed tactics and that most defenses were ill-equipped to handle a mechanized invasion with close air support (what we now know as Blitzkrieg). His generals were convinced that they would get bogged down in Poland and were absolutely sure that they would bog down France (assuming they were able to get past the Maginot line) and obviously in both cases were wrong.
Hitler’s generals, for all their brillance, failed him in two key areas: They failed to convince him to go ahead with Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) and failed to convinced him out of Operation Barbossa (the invasion of Soviet Union). In the case of Barbossa, once they took both Poland and France in a month a piece, they stopped arguing and figured Hitler knew what he was doing.
I agree that it was Hitler that pushed for new tactics but not without the support of his generals – not all were stuffy.
Not going ahead with “Operation Sea Lion” was a real blunder…Britain would have fallen.
I don’t think the generals just stopped arguing with Hitler about Barbaossa because they thought Hitler knew what he was doing – they just gave up.
Easy to sit back now and point out all the ‘should ofs’
Cheers