Mission: Iran

  1. Focus: Mission Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online

    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...lph_peters.htm

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran

    Operations in Iran are on the table for 2007.

    What other choice is there?

    Bottom line, the current moves, taken in tandem, are not designed to 'go big' in Iraq but rather, to 'go wide' in Iran. 2 aircraft carriers in the region, another on the way. Navy guy put in charge of operations. Big build up in a nation that borders Iran.

    Iran is on the table.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 6, '07
    •  
  2. 16 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Focus: Mission Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online

    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...lph_peters.htm

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran

    Operations in Iran are on the table for 2007.

    What other choice is there?

    Bottom line, the current moves, taken in tandem, are not designed to 'go big' in Iraq but rather, to 'go wide' in Iran. 2 aircraft carriers in the region, another on the way. Navy guy put in charge of operations. Big build up in a nation that borders Iran.

    Iran is on the table.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran
    RealClearPolitics - Articles - To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran


    I think it is up to the people of the United States to insist we do NOT start another war unless there is NO OTHER OPTION!

    What is wrong with trying anything and everything that may save lives?
    Even having our President talk with the crazy man who is their president. Is that not what world leaders do?
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    It's a different mindset. Their President is part of a sect that believes creating a holocaust will bring the Mahdi - the Islamic savior to the world.

    He believes that using a nuke against Israel is the ultimate religious act.

    How do you talk someone out of that?

    And if you are Israel, how do not prevent that from happening, at all costs?

    Read the first link, about the plans for a tactical nuke strike at the Iranian uranium processing plant at Natanz. That is tomorrow's front page headline.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Considering the current strategic planning, this sounds like more than just rhetoric: it sounds like positioning.

    Democrats: Nuclear Iran unacceptable | Jerusalem Post

    "Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

    The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

    He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option."


    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  6. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    It's a different mindset. Their President is part of a sect that believes creating a holocaust will bring the Mahdi - the Islamic savior to the world.

    He believes that using a nuke against Israel is the ultimate religious act.

    How do you talk someone out of that?

    And if you are Israel, how do not prevent that from happening, at all costs?

    R
    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    How do you know?
    If he believes this what do you think will happen if we launch a nuclear weapon?
    Do you trust the executive team that started this war killing hundreds of thousand of civilians?
    He claims to sleep well at night with no worries or second thoughts?

    What about LIFE?

    From your post:
    To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran
    RealClearPolitics - Articles - To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Jan 7, '07 : Reason: typo
  7. by   Euskadi1946
    Don't sell Israel short!!! I doubt very much that Israel will ever be destroyed. The State of Israel has been around since 1948 and is surrounded by Muslims who have been trying to destroy Israel for 59 years now and Israel is still alive and kicking.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Jan. 8, 2007 0:46 | Updated Jan. 8, 2007 18:14
    If Israel had tactical nukes, would it use them against Iran?

    If Israel had tactical nukes, would it use them against Iran? | Jerusalem Post
    --------------------------

    Israel denies planning nuclear attack on Iran
    Experts wonder if political 'posturing' is behind report of a tactical strike against Tehran's nuclear program.
    Israel denies planning nuclear attack on Iran | csmonitor.com
    ------------------------------
    Experts say nuclear strike on Iranian targets feasible but unlikely
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...349390,00.html
  9. by   CHATSDALE
    isreal may deny planning an unprovoked attach against iran but if the combination of nuclear and delivery system come together they are going to have no choice

    same song, second verse
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from CHATSDALE
    isreal may deny planning an unprovoked attach against iran but if the combination of nuclear and delivery system come together they are going to have no choice

    same song, second verse
    The ultimate question is this: is it better to fight this conflict NOW, or after they obtain nukes.

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - The War Against Global Jihadism

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated more than once that he is a 'twelver', a believer that the creation of chaos against non-Muslims will hasten the return of the 12th Imam.

    That simply MUST be taken under consideration when deciding whether his public statements are merely rhetoric, or policy.

    Many Christians believe that the rapture will coincide with Armageddon. Imagine if you will, a prolific sect of Christians that believed that creating that Armageddon would hasten the day of rapture. Now, imagine them with the means to make it happen. Could you use 'diplomacy' to talk them out of their rapture? That would be an apt analogy, and THAT is what we are facing.

    Is the risk of say, 5,000 more military American lives in the gulf today worth the tradeoff of preserving say, 100,000 civilian lives 5 yrs from now? A million?

    Ultimately, it may well be that the solution to Iraq lies on the road to Iran. They are in fact, at war with us now. Iran's advisors AND their weapons are causing the brunt of American deaths and injury.

    I see Iraq as the opening salvo in a much larger generational conflict, one we did not create but one in which we must win. I believe the stakes are just as high as WWII. And I believe that any ultimate settlement in Iraq that leads to 'failure' will have long ranging and devastating effects. We can only 'lose' if we decide to lose. They are outgunned and outclassed and know it. THAT is why their major weapon is propaganda and guerilla tactics designed to wear down and not win. THEY see victory as our withdrawal, not in combat with us. Their strategic goal is our tactical withdrawal. They are correct in at least one respect: this is a conflict that requires strategic thinking. No matter what you think of President Bush, our entry in Iraq was a strategic decision and not a tactical one.

    Confusing the tactical consequences of one battlefield as paramount over the strategic battle in play is simply not wise, long term. Ultimately, be it by internal regime change or military encounter, Iran is on the strategic map. THEY put themselves there.

    Diplomacy can only work when it brings together rational minds interested in the here and now. There is simply nothing you can put on the table that compares with the arrival of a savior, the 12th Imam.

    No, the 'election' of a principle player in the 1979 hostage crisis as their President says much about Iran's strategic plans.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 8, '07
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    If America were to suffer a nuclear detonation in say, to use Tom Clancy's locale, Denver, we'd be fighting mad but we'd survive as a nation.

    If Israel were to suffer a nuclear detonation in say, Haifa, the same might not logically follow.

    If YOU were acting as the government of Israel, would YOU take the chance that Iran is merely posturing by constantly advocating for the utter destruction of Israel?

    Israel's position is clear. They've used force to protect themselves from a nuclear armed avowed enemy before, in 1982 diminishing Saddam's quest for the holy grail. There is every evidence that they will do so, again.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Imagine if you will, a prolific sect of Christians that believed that creating that Armageddon would hasten the day of rapture. Now, imagine them with the means to make it happen. Could you use 'diplomacy' to talk them out of their rapture? That would be an apt analogy, and THAT is what we are facing.
    Someone could say the exact same thing about the USA. Lots of folk that say that there are people who are driving our mid-east policy in the hopes of inviting divine intervention.

    So by enjoining a fight there - won't we be playing into their arms? That's exactly what they are itching for - for the "crusader nation" to attack another "holy muslim nation".

    Of course you're gonna provide an explanation of where you think you are right and I'm wrong.


    The Global Military Interventionist policy is alive, well and strong; I see.

    Over and out,
  13. by   Logan
    Hi,

    I don't think "Crusader nation" matters as much as people lend it credence. It's simply a "label of convenience".

    I heartily recommend this book.
    Click the cover for details.




    As icnonoclastic as it is accurate.

    Thanks,
    Matthew
  14. by   bethin
    Quote from spacenurse
    How do you know?
    If he believes this what do you think will happen if we launch a nuclear weapon?
    Do you trust the executive team that started this war killing hundreds of thousand of civilians?
    He claims to sleep well at night with no worries or second thoughts?

    What about LIFE?
    I don't trust a politician. How he sleeps probably involves Ambien, Ativan, Trazadone all taken with Jim Beam. Either that or he's seriously needs psychiatric help.

    Do we have the soldiers for this war? Who's going to be protecting us at home when everyone is overseas? Please Mr President, one war at a time.

    And what about N Korea? Of course we will be invading them in the next few years. That will probably be Bush's last invasion. IMO, he's invasion happy. Like a doctor with a big ego that can do no wrong, Bush is the same way.

    BTW, and it's off topic, how often do you hear about Operation Enduring Freedom? Not often. There's still men and women dying in that country but it doesn't make the news unless something horrific happens.

    I keep telling myself, 2 more years, 2 more years. And if another republican is elected, I'm moving to Canada with muffie.

close