Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Response to Iran
http://www.helvitorial.com/ ^ | September 1, 2006 | Alan Helvig

Posted on 09/01/2006 9:55:20 AM PDT by BigAlPro

On their website, the Fox News Channel asked the question, "How would you handle Iran thumbing its nose at the U.N. deadline?" Here is my seven step response. First: I would identify 30 - 50 nuclear threat targets and confirm their exact coordinates with at least three different intelligence organizations. Second: I would use my best spyware to track Ahmadinejad's exact location. Third: I would pick a time and place when I can confirm Ahmadinejad's expected long term presence at a place which offers minimal collateral damage. Fourth: I would launch a series of Tomahawk missiles on Ahmadinejad's confirmed location. Fifth: I would launch a series of Tomahawk missiles on the 30 - 50 confirmed nuclear threat targets with a coordinated destruction time within 10 minutes of killing Ahmadinejad. Sixth: I would reach out to the new Iranian leader and ask him to discuss the unconditional dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. Seventh: I would repeat steps one through six until Iran is in full compliance with my no-nukes policy.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ahmadinejad; deadline; iran; iranian; nuclear; threat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 09/01/2006 9:55:21 AM PDT by BigAlPro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

So ... lather, rinse, repeat?


2 posted on 09/01/2006 9:56:52 AM PDT by The G Man (The NY Times did "great harm to the United States" - President George W. Bush 6/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

I LIKE IT!!!!!!!!


3 posted on 09/01/2006 9:57:21 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Israel, taking out the world's trash since 1948.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
I wonder if Alan realizes that the targeted assignation of foreign head of state you have not declared war on is basically a war crime. It is also an opening of a Pandora's box that NO nation has ever opened. It easy to TALK tough , it a heck of a different think to actually WALK the talk. Conservatives frequently forget it is NOT just THEM that a President works for.
4 posted on 09/01/2006 9:59:14 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Elections are more important then the feelings of the POS Cons (Perpetually Offended Syndrome))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

THAT is a well thought out plan.....actually the best 1 I have seen so far.


When do we start the bombing?


5 posted on 09/01/2006 10:00:22 AM PDT by MadeInAmerica (- If ILLEGAL means Undocumented - Then Breaking and Entering means Unannounced Visit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
Thoughts are good. but ... it won't work.

Tomahawks are not the right munition for the assets targeted.

The B-2 is the right weapon system, as they can carry and dispense massive HE ordnance and penetrating 'bunker busters' in the same flight. And do so with better precision than the Tomahawk.

IF you really want to do it with shock and awe, use ICBMs with conventional warheads. There is simply no Iranian defense. Period.
6 posted on 09/01/2006 10:01:53 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I wonder if Alan realizes that the targeted assignation of foreign head of state you have not declared war on is basically a war crime...

__________________________________________________________


Again with the pansy approach to this war. PLEASE, for 1 moment realize they are NOT interested in what a war crime is. But, for your logic, is it a war crime to call for the destruction of another nation? Is it a war crime to hold Anmerican hostages in 1979 like HE did. Is it a war crime to funnel money to an organization that wears no uniforms, hides in the general population while starting a war.


7 posted on 09/01/2006 10:03:20 AM PDT by MadeInAmerica (- If ILLEGAL means Undocumented - Then Breaking and Entering means Unannounced Visit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

Also, Tomahawks take a L O N G time to get to their targets. They are subsonic and often fly circuitous routes to avoid giving away their final aiming point. By the time you launch and detonate, Nutjob will be elsewhere.


8 posted on 09/01/2006 10:04:44 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

BTTT


9 posted on 09/01/2006 10:09:41 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
I have simplified his plan down to ONE step:


10 posted on 09/01/2006 10:11:26 AM PDT by stm (Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadeInAmerica
BUMP to what you wrote.

People here will eventually figure out that the Islamofascists are coming for us.

Unfortunately, the light bulb may not come on until we are running and dodging them in the streets. They are relentless and they are NOT politically correct and they won't stop until we are all dead. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Fighting fire with fire is the ONLY way this conflict will be solved. It tears me up that we have way more capability than we need to fix this. But we must be PC and a bunch of people have/will died as a result. Sickening!

11 posted on 09/01/2006 10:19:56 AM PDT by upchuck (Q:Why does President Bush support amnesty for illegal aliens? A:Read this: http://tinyurl.com/nyvno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

"the targeted assignation of foreign head of state you have not declared war on is basically a war crime."

The initial, pre-invasion action in Iraq by the US, as I recall, was an attempt to decapitate by hitting Sadaam in a place where we believed him to be. If we had succeeded, would that have been a war crime? We were not (and are not yet) in a Constitutionally legal state of war with with Sadaam's regieme or its remnants. But maybe the Congressional authorization to use force makes us "at war" for legal purposes.


12 posted on 09/01/2006 11:06:57 AM PDT by Stirner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
Tomahawks many not be able to do the trick. We may need for some B-2s to deliver some bunker busters. Much of the Iranian nuke program is buried underground. Also, Tomahawks take a while to arrive on target (they are subsonic).
13 posted on 09/01/2006 11:23:46 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadeInAmerica

Is it a war crime if an atomic bomb accidently lands on the Ad-man's head?


14 posted on 09/01/2006 11:34:41 AM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stm

I understand the anger and the franstration. But how can we talk about nuclear attack on Iran? Have you ever heard of nuclear fall out? Do you know what the distance is between Iran, W. Europe, Israel? May be I don't understand something, so if there is anyone who is more familiar with our unconventional capabilities can comment? Are there any new smaller and more taktical nukes in our arsinal? I mean is there a way to drop a nuke on the relativly small target without poluting the whole area?


15 posted on 09/01/2006 11:35:51 AM PDT by FreeAndRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeAndRight
Please forgive me, I was typing toooo damn fast and forgot to spell check it... My bat!
16 posted on 09/01/2006 11:37:24 AM PDT by FreeAndRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro

Ignore Iran. The 12th imam didn't show. It's over.


17 posted on 09/01/2006 11:38:20 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigAlPro
A recent issue of 'National Review' had a lengthy article discussing the pros and cons of "Assassination" as a viable part of our Foreign Policy.
18 posted on 09/01/2006 11:40:12 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAndRight

an M80 warhead on a Tomahawk, with an adjustable yield of 5-150KT would not create a huge fallout cloud. It would, however, make a very clear point.


19 posted on 09/01/2006 11:46:43 AM PDT by stm (Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

People here will eventually figure out that the Islamofascists are coming for us.

Unfortunately, the light bulb may not come on until we are running and dodging them in the streets. They are relentless and they are NOT politically correct and they won't stop until we are all dead. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Fighting fire with fire is the ONLY way this conflict will be solved. It tears me up that we have way more capability than we need to fix this. But we must be PC and a bunch of people have/will died as a result. Sickening!

_________________________________________________________


Stunning isn't it!


20 posted on 09/01/2006 11:48:15 AM PDT by MadeInAmerica (- If ILLEGAL means Undocumented - Then Breaking and Entering means Unannounced Visit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson