| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Ritter: U.S. plans massive air strike on Iran (hope he's right, heh) |
| 2005-04-30 |
| From Geostrategy-Direct, subscription req'd. Does Scott Ritter know something that we don't? Aside from underage chicks.... The controversial ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said President Bush has approved plans to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons installations. The date: June 2005. The method: a massive air attack. Blinding statement of the obvious. Scott Ritter: The U.S. minimum goal is to destroy most of the Iranian nuclear facilities and set back Teheran's program at least a decade. Sounds like a plan. Ritter, in a February lecture in Olympia, Wash., said the administration had a minimum and maximum goal in the air operation over Iraq. The minimum goal was to destroy most of the Iranian nuclear facilities and set back Teheran's program at least a decade. The maximum goal was to destroy Iran's cleric regime and set the stage for a pro-democratic takeover. Ritter doubted that either goal would be accomplished. And why, pray tell does he doubt the US ability? Or is it wishful thinking? Is Ritter's information accurate? Here's what we know: Over the past year, the Pentagon has been discussing and training for a major air and ground attack on Iran. U.S. satellites and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles have been scouring everything above ground in Iran in a search for WMD facilities. As well they should be. Bush Doctrine 101. In February 2005, Bush quietly approved a State Department recommendation for Washington to endorse the European Union diplomatic campaign to halt Iranian uranium enrichment. But neither Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney gives the EU effort any chance of success. The Great Appeasement, Perdiem, and Lunch Festival with the MMs. Instead, the White House sees the EU effort as a justification for much harsher measures after failure. Would harsh measures include a military attack on Iran in another two months? It will be time critical to take out Bushehr before it is loaded with fuel. It is also time critical to disable the U235 concentration process, too, before too many critical masses are accumulated. Regardless, Ritter's goal wasn't to inform the American people as much as warn them of the consequences of a U.S. war against Iran. As he sees it, a U.S. war with Iran would make the 2003 invasion of Iraq a picnic. Stay tuned. So what does Ritter suggest to keep fissile material out of the hands of the MMs, or does his pathological hate of the US cause him to wish that it were so with the MMs? |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #12 Just more indicia that the Left wants the various rogue crises resolved before Hillary runs for POTUS - iff Der StalinReich CrockerFrau. Laissez faire-lesbos-for-Regulation-Big Government-and Mackinder wants eight years of Bill-style comparative geopol "quiet", then Iran, NK, Taiwan, ...etal has and MUST-T-T-T be resolved NOW in order for the Clintons People's Waffen SS Soviet Army of the USSA, the Global Republican Federalist Empire of the Dominion of the Union of the Confederacy, can save the burning Conestoga wagons of Clintonian Amerika's pro-National Commmunist-centric Midwest-Mainsteam from their own Potemkinist, pseudo-SPETANATZ, Radical Islam and Clintonian Fascistas, i.e. Fascists-for-Communism, Hitlerists-for Stalin/Marxism, and Amerikan Washingtonians for Moscow-and-Beijing, etc!? Good laissez faire Clintonian patriotskis demand their Global Regulation, OWG, abd Global Taxation, d*** you! Just because the Left is arming the Injuns, milyuhns and zilyuhns of Injuns, and telling them to kill America doesn't mean you have the right to fight back, or get angry about it!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-04-30 10:14:06 PM |
| #11 Sock, a billiard ball in the toe end of a half pair of panty hose works much better. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-04-30 7:17:21 PM |
| #10 Well, Ritter wants attention, that is a given. We are however in a race to keep nukes out of the MMs, which puts a time crunch on the MM regime change option. When Bushehr goes hot, dealing with them will that much more difficult. We do not want to make a hot lake out of the Persian Gulf. The other problem is that we at Rantburg do not have the intel as to what is really happening in Iran. OS may have some inkling, but he's not going to tell. It is like looking for the Pribolof Islands in the Bering Sea with a plane. Blue skies as far as one can see, but a big assed fog bank below. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-04-30 12:16:32 PM |
| #9 A massive air raid would deter other potential experimenters with nukes. And deterrence is the name of the game - I think we need to establish a point where we're through with talking. To say that American actions are split between all-out invasion and negotiations is to deprive us of an important military option. We haven't done the kind of attack mounted against Libya in almost two decades. It's time we refreshed some memories. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-04-30 11:36:43 AM |
| #8 Heh. xbalanke, the "ex-Marine" is an insult, intentional or not. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-04-30 11:27:52 AM |
| #7 lecture in Olympia WA, huh? Was it buttering up the St. Pancake alumni hugathon at Evergreen College? bet that was a real anti-american fest |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-04-30 11:04:43 AM |
| #6 OS - Two things real quick: first, does it make sense to consider that we would wait until after the Presidential elections there? If a 'moderate' (Gawd, I HATE that expression) is elected and steamrollered by the MMs or the MMs blatantly interfere in the elections, the Iranian people may take care of matters for us, which I had thought was a preferred outcome in any event. (And it may not be as preferred as we want, though that's another story.) Secondly, I would respectfully disagree with you on the wisdom of Mullah hunting. If a couple or three senior Mullahs communed with Allah at the wrong end of a JDAM, I believe the message might be the strongest one we have sent yet, and the MMs outside of Iran might very well keep their heads down. Remember what Allah said about Death and hiding in high towers... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-04-30 10:49:43 AM |
| #5 "The controversial ex-Marine ..." They say: "Once a Marine, always a Marine." But I bet the Corp's willing to make an exception in his case. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2005-04-30 10:25:06 AM |
| #4 Disinformation campaign by the U. S. The mmore the mullahs think we'll attack, the crazier they get internally and the les willing the Iranians are wiling to put up with them. Let them send RG into Afghanistan and Iraq. It only makes the reasonable Euros less likely to support a nuke deal with them. And the unreasonable Euros will stay bought no matter what happens. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-04-30 8:55:34 AM |
| #3 Downside is that after destroying the Ayatollahs nuke program we would have a lot less international sympathy when a mega-terror event takes place on US soil. By Iranian revenge terrorists or other Muslims |
| Posted by: sea cruise 2005-04-30 8:50:01 AM |
| #2 Soap in a sock? I my old neighborhood the use of big league wooden Baseball Bats was manditory. Winding up was considered good form I hear. That he has earned in spades. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-04-30 4:14:32 AM |
| #1 Ritter is a brainless pedophiliac dick. 1) To attack now would unhinge the nascent internal democratic and revolutionary movements. It would give the Mullahs the reason and power to crack down. 2) It would stop the growing dissent within the caountry against the current regime by giving everyone a common external enemy to focus on. 3)It starts a hot war instead of rotting Iran by giving them and example next door: Democratic and pluraistic government that works and is primarlily secular (espcially impressive for the Shia, their brothers over in Iraq are living large now). 4) The ground forces are not anywhere near ready to stabilize another large country - this one with even more people, even more rugged terrain, and even more in-bred dislike fo the US. 5) Economically, it would disrupt oil supplies, throwing a huge shock into the world prices, and would probably knock the US into a recession. In short, its would be a dumbassed thing to do at this time or anywhere int he near future, while we are ssstill engaged in Iraq. The only condition would be that the US (via the CIA, a very shaky thing to trust) had a government by the Iranians that was ready to rise up, disarm and disable the IRG, and take over governance in a hurry - and even then, there would have to be a decapitating strike on the IRG command elements, as well as the ruling regime's political leadership in the person of the head Mullahs (imagine the islamic fallout from deliberately targeting Mullahs, no matter how deserving they are of an Maverick enema). And all this without demolishing their economy or hurting the moderates and freedom-leaning forces there that would be needed post-strike. In other words, not very likely. Ritter is full of shit. Ritter is just trying to stir shit up with the Iranians to give them excuses to send agents and terrs from the Revolutionary Guard over the border into Afghanistan and Iraq. He is a traitorous prick and should be dealt with severely. He is a c**ks**ker of the radical Arabs and UN child-rapists. Yes, I HATE the guy. Its that visceral - nothing worse than someone that formerly served doing the work of the enemy, willingly. I wonder what the promised him, all the little girls and little boys he wants, I suppose. If I met him in real-life, I'd be hard pressed to keep from simply throwing my best atemi into whatever target area he has open at the time (likely shomen tsuki, right under the point of the jaw), then lock him up with a kote-gashi and grind his wristbones jagged inside the joint. Listening to him howl would be a pleasure. Highly unChristian of me. But that assmunch Ritter deserves it. God forgive me. Somone ought to hand Ritter over to the Marines and let them do what they do best to traitors who disgrace the Corps. Anyone up for a blanket party? With concrete rebar instead of soap-in-a-sock? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-30 4:05:20 AM |