2,000 is a good start.
Don’t buy this one. Alot of inuendo by Bush haters.
>>>Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran,
In the last week I’ve read that line a dozen times, but this time it occurs to me that somewhere a bunch of Iranian staff officers are working night and day to answer the question WHICH 2000 targets would that be. The first hundred or so are simple, the nuke sites, airbases, SAM sites, etc. But rounding out the list in a nation as large as Iran has to be a job.
Well, there is the little thing called Congressional approval which given Democratic control is going to be unlikely to obtain.
I would put an attack on Iraq as a very low probability right now. I think the only thing that might change that would be an Iranian attack on US interests in the ME or elsewhere or on Israel.
So that’s the word from London (posted article from the Telegraph)! Things are getting very interesting, indeed! We’ll see what happens.
France’s Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887211/posts
ON COLLISION PATH : FRANCE’S SARKOZY RAISES PROSPECTS OF STRIKES AGAINST IRAN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887505/posts
French FM Kouchner: ‘We must prepare for war against Iran’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897458/posts
Germany backs French minister on Iranian nuclear weapons warning
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898190/posts
I ask you, what's not to like about that guy?
Which should have been done by the CARTER administration...
You can lance a pustule when it's the size of a booger, or you can wait until it's the size of a grapefruit and you have to take off an arm to be quit of it.
Bush 2 will be no different.
Hillary (Bush 3) will cowtow as well.
Until Iranian proxies (Iraq Lebanon Syria Palestine) attack Israel unleashing the prophesy.
BUMP
If they didn’t at least plan for this contingency, I wouldn’t have voted for them in the first place. However, I’m not going to believe the Telegraph reporting, either. Besides, isn’t Iran already at war withus? How many of OUR soldiers have been killed by Qud forces in Iraq or by Iranian supplied weapons?
It’s a bunch of bull. He may be preparing, but he’s not going to pull the trigger. He’s going to leave it for his successor to decide.
This has been coming for 28 years and is another punch in the turmoil released by Jimah Cartar. My wish is a quick, destructive strike that pushes Iran over the edge and forces “moderates” in the country to throw off the Mullahs.
Having said that, our troops in Iraq must be ready for missles to rain on them from Iran. Certainly Iran will counterattack American forces and the Israelies too. Israel must sit it out again too, let us handle it. Iranian attacks on sites in Iraq will only make the Iraqis madder than they already are at Iran and serve our purposes as well.
Under no circumstances can we commit ground troops to Iran. Because the President and Rumsfeld refused to enlarge the military after 9/11, there are no large bodies of troops not already nearly burnt out from repeated Iraqi service. We could perhaps take Kargh Island and shut off their oil flow. That would be a relatively easy operation.
At any rate, I support attacking Iran becaue they are attacking us now in Iraq, they are the chief world sponsor of Islamic terror and have never paid any price for attacking us in 1979. God speed to our forces as they do the work that must be done.
The Germans just declined to agree to embargoes or boycotts, preferring that the USA bombs the crap out of Iran’s nuke facilities. If we can’t embargo, bombing is all we have.
An easy place to start would be to arrest “Ahmadidajob” when he speechifies before the UN this month.
Preferably prior to.
Here’s what I’ve been pushing for:
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.