Article

2009-12-21 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2009-12-21 08:31|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Gee, what's Bambi gonna do....?

Vote "present".

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-12-21 11:47|| 2009-12-21 11:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Nah, he'll do it the Chicago way. He'll threaten to witdraw all their ... their, um ... F-14 spare parts!

Posted by Bobby 2009-12-21 12:18|| 2009-12-21 12:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Wait until the wind is northerly to nuke 'em.

Posted by mojo 2009-12-21 12:30|| 2009-12-21 12:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Not to compare apples to oranges here, because that's exactly what I'm about to do, but my guess is that The 0ne will follow the same blueprint, more or less, that he established with his Afghanistan decision. In other words, he will wither and waver in an effort to make it look like he is soberly weighing all available options sans emotion. Then, in the final hour, my guess is that he will green light Israel's use of military force to take out Iran's nuclear facilities-- because let's face it, they are going to do it with or without our blessing, anyways-- on the condition they they take the lead militarily while the US plays a secondary role (as far as appearances are concerned).

Posted by eltoroverde 2009-12-21 13:51|| 2009-12-21 13:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Gee, what's Bambi gonna do....?

Blame Bush of course.

Posted by rjschwarz 2009-12-21 14:51|| 2009-12-21 14:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Gee whats Bambi gonna do?

Use his mouth to write checks that his ass can't cash.

Posted by GirlThursday 2009-12-21 14:58|| 2009-12-21 14:58|| Front Page Top

#7 Year 2010-2020 Next Decade > I don't anticipate or foresee Radical Islam letting up on its Jihad in any way - in fact, I expect the violence to worsen as the Islamists move beyond AFPAK. MORESO IFF IRAN DECLARES ITSELF TO BE A NUCWEAPS STATE COME 2012, as it technically already is a NucPower = NucState wid its low-yield nucmats.

IMO YEAR 2012 AND BEYOND > NUCWEAPSTATE IRAN = ADVENT OF NUCLEAR MILITANCY-TERRORISM AGZ THE US-WORLD.

Lest we fergit, RADICAL MULLAHS > BETTER THE WORLD TO BE DESTROYED THAN FOR ISLAM/ISLAMISM TO NOT RULE.

Also, IIRC QURANIC VERSE [paraph] > BEFORE WE ANNIHILATE A COMMUNITY OR PEOPLE, WE EMPOWER OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VAST CORRUPTION(S) WITHIN.

IOW, Radical Islam believes it can win becuz, among other, the "powers that be" in the US-WEST FEAR LACK OF PCORRECTNESS, ETC. MORE THAN REALITY OR PROTECTING THEMSELVES + THEIR OWN.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-12-21 19:47|| na 2009-12-21 19:47|| Front Page Top

#8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXzED6GnEdo&feature=related

Iran can take a one way trip...no warning. No threat. Just do 'em.

Posted by Angleton9 2009-12-21 20:37|| 2009-12-21 20:37|| Front Page Top

#9 ION PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > STRATFOR: THE IRANIAN INCURSION IN CONTEXT|IRAN's NUCLEAR GAME. ARTIC > SOURCES indic that Tehran deliber ordered this action, as Iran at this time cannot allow the USA [or even Israel] to initiate hostilitiesagz it, hence cannot allow same to control the tempo, timeline of events. Iran wants Washington DC = Obama Admin to know that
* Iran will NOT wait for Washington to consider all possible scenarios: +
* Iran knows how to raise OIL PRICES.

ARTIC > US per se is unlikely to attack Iran widout first

* SECURING OIL SHIPMENTS, ETC. THRU STRAITS OF HORMUZ = PERSIAN GULF in face of Iranian-specific Mines, fast gunboats, tacair + missles.
* SECURING IRAQ + IRAQ'S BORDERS FROM ANY AND ALL IRAN-CONTROLLED MILITIA GROUPS OR IRANIAN MILITARY, IRGC UNITS LOC INSIDE IRAQ OR ALONG IRAQ-IRAN BORDERS.
* DESTROYING OR CONTAINING HIZBOLLAH, ETC. IRAN-SUPPOR/CONTROLLED LEBANON-BASED MILITIA GROUPS.

* SAME > RUSSIA: WEST USING REBELS [e.g. Chechen] TO DESTROY THE [Russian]FEDERATION.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-12-21 21:01|| na 2009-12-21 21:01|| Front Page Top

#10 Back in 04, Obama supported option 2. He is so full of himself he thought he could get the Russians and Chicoms to go for option 1, but failed. I agree he may well be forced into option 2. However, Cohen is wrong about there being 3 options. A 4th is preemptive nuke strikes as some have said. The logic of the situation could push us there. Unlike the colld war, the Assured Destruction is not mutual. We might want to remind the Iranians of this "asymmetrical" capability.

Posted by JAB 2009-12-21 21:03|| 2009-12-21 21:03|| Front Page Top

#11 IRAN > at this time is in a "Use-It-or-Lose-It" Scenario agz US-Israel, or at least agz the USA as ISRAEL itself believes it cannot Iran to strike first.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-12-21 21:04|| 2009-12-21 21:04|| Front Page Top

#12 TOPIX > MULLEN: MILITARY FORCE MAY NOT PREVENT IRAN FROM DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BUT MUST REMAIN AN OPTION; + MULLEN: US MUST READY ALL OPTIONS AGZ IRAN.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-12-21 23:23|| na 2009-12-21 23:23|| Front Page Top

00:01 Galactic Coordinator Crailing9327
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:05 3dc
23:03 trailing wife
22:57 trailing wife
22:55 3dc
22:54 logi_cal
22:52 trailing wife
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:26 rammer
22:00 GirlThursday
21:51 USN, Ret.
21:50 rammer
21:42 European Conservative
21:39 Frank G
21:20 JosephMendiola