#1
The Russian navy is one part of their national bipolar disorder. For a while, they want to be a European naval power, and then they want to be an Asiatic land power.
This is why they will build a huge fleet, then let it rust.
#1
I doubt it. It's far more likely a nuclear war in SW Asia will cause climate change. See the current issue of Scientific American. Nuclear Winter is a much more widely accepted probability than Global Warming.
#4
That threat of Islamist surrogate use is a standard Pakistani pressure tactic. The reality is that the Pakistani feudal elite is in control and will remain so.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/26/2009 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You're closer so I'm glad you're comfortable. But it still worries me.
#6
The only climate change that is likely to lead to war is the one resulting from the replacement of GWB, a strong leader, with a pompous pussy in the White House.
This is part of the concluding paragraphs of a surprising editorial.
Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
You'd think you'd know which of these the NYT favors. Keep reading ...
The risks of acquiescence are obvious. Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of international embargoes. Even President Ahmadinejad's domestic opponents support this weapons traffic. If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb.
As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran's political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.
But history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel's 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq's rapid acquisition of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual, uranium-based bomb program. A decade later, the Persian Gulf war uncovered and enabled the destruction of that uranium initiative, which finally deterred Saddam Hussein from further pursuit of nuclear weapons (a fact that eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion). Analogously, Iran's atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.
I just about fell out of my chair when tipper posted this. The NYT must be trying to help Bambi grow a spine. That or they really want to get the country's mind off the health care reform bill.
#1
Anybody know if the Iranians have buried power plants to run their buried centrifuges? If not, destroy the power plants. If so, they have to get rid of the waste heat somewhere, which should be a telltale.
#3
But history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel's 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor
Israel "finised" Osirak and they will likely finish the Iranian initiative as well. Like Osirak, the UN, Russian, and leftest outrage will last approximately 2 weeks. The reduction or end of Iranian proliferation of conventional weapons to terrorist regimes could possibly be a welcomed second order effect.
#4
And Bambi would be such a good Leader in a war....does anyone believe that? A man who bows that good.? Obama is a bendover boy.
You wont see Bambi supporting Israel anymore than he supported the Iranian people's bid for a decent treatment by their own Mullah Regime. Bambi doesnt have a moral instinct. He operates on another standard. He's Chicago and doesnt notice what the Sermon really says. He just sits in the Pew and makes sure he is "present".
You wont see Bambi starting a war. His actions in Afghanistan are put your left foot in and take your left foot out and then turn it all about...that's what its all about ...doe si doe. Hum it with me. No Bambi is no Audie Murphy.
Obanana wouldnt fight for his own mother.
We WILL have a war with Iran. We wont have any choice. And it will be basic and nasty as all hell. Fall 2016. Then another bigger war in winter 2025. Iran wont be around much at all after it is all over. It wont be just tap tap and its over. Its going to be thoroughly final.
Everybody will regret it, but its going to be necessary. Nobody will like the price or the pain or the mess. We waited too long. Wars are bad things. Its been sixty years since Hiroshima...and it still hurts. The Cold War was bad. It still hurts too. And the world is full of those places where you can stand there and there arent any flowers and birds...just bleak stink.
Chernobyl in northern Ukraine...not exactly a tourist attraction....or the old Soviet Fleet at anchor in Vladivostok waters....or the Caspian Sea graveyards. It isnt like the anchored Merchant Fleet mothballed up at West Point. Its cold and dark in the hold in half sunk and leaning Soviet boneyards and sitting on the bottom in a rusting hell with oil slicks and weather-eaten metal.
Chernobyl is gonna be a nice place compared to Iran. And when the little Moslem kiddies smile you wont want to look too closely at their little open mouths.
#5
Distraction? It's worse than that. As a historical guide, the inexperienced crew in the WH can look to Clinton/Kosovo and its effect on 'Lewinski'. They've already sandbagged the Israelis, and the world 'watched' while Iranians died challenging the leadership, so options are limited.
Personally, I have grave concerns for either a major 'false flag' or other minor misdirection akin to the 'Maddox incident'.
This NYT article 'smells' of manipulation.
Check your 6 (history, that is).
In Nigeria, a prominent banker said Saturday that he was meeting with security officials there because he feared his son was the suspect. Alhaji Umaru Mutallab told The Associated Press said his son was a one-time university student in London who had left Britain to travel abroad. He said his son hadn't lived in London "for some time" but he wasn't sure exactly where he went to.
"I believe he might have been to Yemen, but we are investigating to determine that," the elder Mutallab said. He said he would provide more details later Saturday as he learned more from authorities.
One law enforcement official said the man claimed to have been instructed by al-Qaida to detonate the plane over U.S. soil, but other law enforcement officials cautioned that such claims could not be verified immediately, and said the man may have been acting independently inspired but not specifically trained or ordered by terror groups.
All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing.
Intelligence and anti-terrorism officials in Yemen said they were investigating claims by the suspect that he picked up the explosive device and instructions on how to use it in that country. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
#11
HELLO I AM ALHAJI UMARU MUTALLAB A PROMINENT BANKER IN NIGERIA. MY SON HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY ACCUSED OF TERRORISM AND I HAVE RAISED THREE MILLION DOLLARS AMERICAN FOR HIS BAIL OF WHICH I AM WILLING TO SHARE ONE HALF OR FIFTY PERCENT IF YOU WILL HELP ME...
I'm sorry, but SOMEBODY had to go there.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/26/2009 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Actually the father tried to alert the US Embassy 6 months ago about his son's radicalism.
#13
OFFICES / DEPARTMENTS
Office of the Legal Attaché
The mission of the FBIs Legal Attaché Program is to establish and maintain liaison with principal law enforcement and intelligence/security services in designated foreign countries. This liaison enables the FBI to effectively and expeditiously meet its international responsibilities in organized crime, international terrorism, foreign counterintelligence, and general criminal matters. The Legal Attachés Office supports the operational needs in Lagos, Nigeria with regional coverage of Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principle and Togo. The liaison activities performed by the Legal Attachés are essential to the successful fulfillment of the international responsibilities of the FBI and United States interests. Liaising is carried out in accordance with executive order, statue, Attorney General Guidelines, and FBI policies.
US Consulate General
2, Walter Carrington Crescent
Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria
Telephone: (234)-1-261-0050, 261-0078
Fax: (234)-1-261-9856
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
