| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Asia Times: Iranian war machine. |
| 2006-05-25 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #26 In other words you would unleash a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' right Maddie? If they served beans? Yes. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-05-25 22:13 |
| #25 Agree in general with Moose but I doubt with 2-1/2 years left Dubya will seek nor want the [current] partitioning of any nation, whatwever the merits. I still strongly believe Dubya will either resolve or at least contain/limit the de facto threats to Amer's democratic allies vv IRAN-NORTH KOREA-TAIWAN CRISES, wid Iran per se likely being deadmeat first thanx to the on-going rants of MadMoud. Wid RUSSIA-CHINA, espec China, going after states in the lower Americas, America and its Allies need Iran both as democratic model and anti-Russia-China buffer for the Muslim member-nations of the Shanghai Coop Organz. For the time being anyway, as expected Iran is focusing its asymmetric defenses along the high mountains and ridges of Iran - iff and when America needs to militarily invade Iran, Iran will probably try to sink or destroy a one or more major naval or base targets before majorily falling back into the mountains to conduct its anti-US, MSM-profiled/ verified "People's War" or "War for Resistance" campaigns in the name of Islam, Shia Islam, and Regional = future Global Iran-centric Empire. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-25 22:01 |
| #24 That's why Kimmie is walking a little bit taller. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-25 21:36 |
| #23 :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-25 21:34 |
| #22 In other words you would unleash a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' right Maddie? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-05-25 21:27 |
| #21 The fact that you even imagined it strongly suggests that you need therapy, Frank. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-05-25 21:24 |
| #20 Scary stuff, Frank. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-05-25 21:13 |
| #19 :-) but....you acknowledge, it could happen? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-25 21:00 |
| #18 "I would also not wear underwear to the State Dinner..." Oh, yegg... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-05-25 20:44 |
| #17 Frank, you are truly frightening in your Ambassadress Albright aspect. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-05-25 20:36 |
| #16 It's not considered polite to gross your guests out at dinner, Madsie. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-05-25 20:25 |
| #15 I would wear a turquoise and gold brooch. That would indicate strong disapproval. I would also not wear underwear to the State Dinner - that would indicate willingness to make a deal |
| Posted by: Madeleine Albright 2006-05-25 20:06 |
| #14 I suspect the Chinese don't give a flying fig about the Persians as long as the oil supply continues to flow. I suspect that the Russians will be happy if they can pick up some of the resulting pieces (the Azeri portion of Iran?). Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-05-25 18:52 |
| #13 I would never fight an Iraq-style war against the moonbats in Iran. I would bomb them to death. Destroy their ports and harbors, their airfields, their transportation networks, their military facilities, their oil facilities, and anything that moved. Just keep hitting them until they surrender, or they're all dead. Make the "muhjadeen" come to us in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they'll stand out like a sore thumb, and will be easy to whack. Iran not only doesn't have sufficient refinery capacity to meet its own needs, it doesn't raise enough food to meet its people's needs. No imports, no exports, and bombs raining down on you without warning, day after day for several years, and the survivors would be so totally whacked they couldn't even LIFT a weapon, much less pull the trigger. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-05-25 18:43 |
| #12 those clowns could not take a single US frigate or cruiser with their 20th century technology and 7th century mind set |
| Posted by: anonymous 2006-05-25 16:41 |
| #11 RJB: You have to assume strongly changed circumstances for this to happen. A good example was if Iran initiated an aggressive war, whether or not the attack was successful. None of the other powers would stand in our way at that point, as all have reserved the right to fight back. Their obvious target would be the strongest US power in the region, the strongest threat to them, one or two US fleets. Most likely with an attack using a proxy like al-Q to take credit. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-05-25 16:00 |
| #10 Good read Moose. It makes sense the partitioning of Iran and all but just how do you suppose China & Russia would react to this? I'm guessing not so good. With the exception of Israel who would join us or at least give political cover? Again I'm guessing but it would be very few I think. If we were lucky maybe the Brits, Aussies & Poles but few others if any. I wonder about Japan.... |
| Posted by: RJB in JC MO 2006-05-25 15:12 |
| #9 It would be unwise to equate Islam with Iran. Other forces have just as much impact. First of all Iran is really just "greater Persia", with only its core state, Persia, being the part of Iran that matters to the Persians. The Persians are not Arabs, but Indo-Europeans, sometimes called "Aryans" (dating back to the 'Aryan Invasion' of the region, to include India). Indo-Europeans are culturally apples and oranges to Semitic Arabs, and the two never have been able to get along very well. The native Persian religion is Zoroastrianism, which is still the religion of much of the upper classes in Persia--who bear some loyalty to Persia, if none to the Mullahs. When Sunni Moslem Arabs conquered Persia, the lower classes rejected Sunni Islamic domination with the Shiite religion; while the upper classes just retained their Zoroastrian beliefs, not caring for either the Arabs *or* their own lower classes. So what is left today? As late as the Iran/Iraq War, Zoroastrians still ran large parts of the professional Iranian Army. All have since been purged, first to be replaced by incompetant Mullahs, who in turn, the leadership of the most critical parts have been replaced by the Iranian Presidents' fellow cultists. The other parts of Iran, greater Persia, have no great loyalty to Persia, yet are exploited by Persia for their resources. Without these resources, Persia retains a well-educated population, but not enough resources to be able to proliferate nuclear weapons. So how is Iran neutralized? First and foremost, by having layered anti-missile defenses in about a 270 degree arc around them, capable of taking down multiple salvos. Without their missiles, they have little or no offensive capability. From that point on, the partitioning of Iran, with its pieces not left to autonomy, but given to its neighbors to keep and defend, reduces Persia to a manageable and peaceful size. But this requires that its military and Revolutionary Guard be annihilated to far below levels they would need to try and reclaim these lost regions. In the long run, this would be an object lesson as to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in disregard to international requirements--a death penalty for Iran, with significant loss of life, but more importantly, permanent disability. An irony, I suppose, in that they justify the amputation of limbs with their Sharia law, that they themselves be amputated in punishment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-05-25 11:21 |
| #8 When your religion doesn't face reality, and your religion is the driving force in your life, how can you face reality ? All things Islam are doomed unless we sleep. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-05-25 09:50 |
| #7 That "feeling of invulnerability" would change to a quite different feeling if it ever came to combat with the US. As I remember, the vaunted 'republican guard' had the same 'feeling'...until about 5 minutes after Desert Storm began. The white flags couldn't come out fast enough. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-05-25 09:44 |
| #6 "The US is being completely ridiculous. While it wishes to police the region, it is dealing with a country that is significantly more powerful than Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, and every other country bar Germany that it has ever fought," said Abdurrahman Shayyal. The Vietnamese would kick 94 shades of waste matter out of the Iranians, and still be home in time for dinner. |
| Posted by: Ulereque Gravick5713 2006-05-25 08:41 |
| #5 No Iranians, no guerilla warfare. Just undeveloped beachfront real estate. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-05-25 08:38 |
| #4 Interesting how Iran is allowing open talk about the changing rolls of the RG. Shifting command lines, like USASOC did years ago. Openly admitting the doctrine change to assymetrical defence etc... Is it real or just propaganda? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-25 08:33 |
| #3 To quote a classic: The clue train has been coming by regularly, but they haven't been taking delivery. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-05-25 05:32 |
| #2 forcing it to depend on its limited stocks (oil products). They will be destroyed too. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-05-25 02:37 |
| #1 These "warriors" are living in a dream world. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-05-25 01:56 |