| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US considers strikes on Iran's military |
| 2007-09-30 |
| Posted by:Oztralian |
| #14 OS, the trick is to make idiots useful, in a way that they have no suspicion whatsoever. Not saying this is the case. Saying pity if it isn't and more of it. No reason that the other side has presently a monopoly on useful idiots. ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-30 23:38 |
| #13 Sy hersch is an idiot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-30 23:30 |
| #12 NEW YORKER > US PRESDIENT RETHINKING IRAN ATTACK STRATEGY. Against the IRGC, i.e. Iran's "other Army", the one wid its own Navy + Air Force + Missles, + first to get any new toys + in charge of defending Islamic fundamentalism ala "the Revoluion" + power base for Moud/Khameini-Mullahs. *TOPIX NEWS > IRAN - IRAN'S GOVT DECLARES USCIA + US ARMY [USDOD] AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-30 22:59 |
| #11 It takes a long time for "hot sand" to "cool down". Some of the half-lives from thermonuclear weapons are measured in eons. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-09-30 22:52 |
| #10 To be PC, Dubya = USA will need either a formal UNO Resolution in suppor of bombingh; or in alternate a unified consensus = diplom "understanding" amongst the "Big Five". IN ANY CASE, CONSIDERING HOW LONG NK + MAJOR MUSLIM NATIONS [Read - SYRIA, LIBYA, SADDAMIST IRAQ, other] HAVE HAD NUCDEV PROGS [decades], AIR STRIKES IS AT BEST A TEMPORARY SOLUTION. Within the scope of Moud's rants to ignore the UNO + not stop enrichment, air strikes will DELAY Iran, NOT STOP IRAN. SHort of accepting a NUCLEAR IRAN = NUCLEARIZED ISLAMISM-FUNDAMENTALISM, the only real options for the USA-West is INVASION AND OCCUPATION ala IRAQ, or pro-Western democratic "regime change" by any means necessary including but not limited to (1). |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-30 20:31 |
| #9 Devious, NS. Devious. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-30 20:03 |
| #8 They get their food from China, don't they? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-30 20:01 |
| #7 This makes little sense on the surface. That is, if we wanted to attack the IRGC, we could make a covert operation that resulted in mass casualties, yet still have plausible deniability. An easy way would be to contaminate the food or water of a large garrison. A thousand IRGC suddenly drop dead of botulism after a Ramadan feast. That would put a serious crimp in the mullahs game plan. If we wanted to destroy a lot of their stuff, it would be even easier. Their munitions and POL storage are probably not the best in the world. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-30 19:28 |
| #6 Seymore Hersh, neocon stooge! |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-09-30 19:22 |
| #5 The value of any deterrent is in the mind of your opponent/objective which perceives whether your threat is credible. The successful Syrian operation makes that deterrent ever more credible. It is better to keep playing this tune in public to keep the Mad Mullahs guessing. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-30 17:54 |
| #4 Bush made pre-emptive strikes popular, so long as they were launched AT him. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-30 17:49 |
| #3 Doesn't he usually write about how evil the US is, AFTER the fact? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-09-30 17:45 |
| #2 Oh, it's fiction. Thanks for the heads-up, Grunt. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-30 17:34 |
| #1 Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. 'nuff said. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2007-09-30 17:31 |