Captain's Quarters -

I've been watching The War by Ken Burns. Last night, the gentleman from Connecticut relayed a story from his days in Europe. His platoon had captured a group of German soldiers and one spoke in perfect, unaccented English. The German asked where the American soldier was from and the American replied that he was from the northeastern part of the U.S. "Where in the northeast?" pressed the German.

"Connecticut," responded the American.

"Where in Connecticut?"

The American soldier took a moment to answer. "Waterbury."

"Ah," said the German, and commented that the small city lay on the banks of the joining of two rivers, one well-known, but the other more of a creek one could jump across and only known to locals of the area. The American stared at him in surprise.

"How do you know this?" he asked the German.

"I was training for administration of the Territories," replied the German.

The soldier said the exchange gave him chills as he had never considered that Hitler's plans included control of the U.S. We should be remembering this as we continue "talks" with Iran. And talk and talk and talk.

If we punt on this issue, our children and grandchildren will be forced to deal with this mess and it will be far more painful than dealing with Social Security and Medicare.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

Does Captain Ed really believe that diplomacy and sanctions will persuade the mullahcracy?, or that information dispensed to the people will topple it?

I'm frankly surprised that Captain Ed believes such things will work.

Sometimes there are no good choices.

This, just as Hillary proposes legislation in the Senate of the United States to limit the Commander In Chiefs powers to deal with Iran even though he has daily intelligence briefings on the goings on in that Theater in the War on Terror.

I never thought I would see the day Americans would surrender before the French.

Well, Hillary really is an Anti-American leftist/communist before she is an American.

Lets ask her, that should be good for one of those fake, disingenuous CACKLES she unveiled over the weekend.

Capt., are you thinking that the Iranian people have any chance of overthrowing the mullahs on their own?

My response to that idea is, see Burma.

If I remember correctly, the mullahs internal security force isn't even Iranian, and they're selected for fanaticism.

The regime is engaged in another round of suppression and executions.

To be sure, there are a lot of Iranians who would be glad to be rid of the regime, but they have no guns and no organization, and it would take a civil war to get rid of the mullahs. Popular revolts have only worked, when a regime is weak and it's security forces at least partially take the populaces side. The mullahocracy doesn't meet the conditions. There's nobody else we can rely on to get rid of the regime but ourselves.

I am saddened to read these words from you Captain. Iran is lead by a man whose stated purpose is to pave the way for the coming of the 12th Imam. An event that must be preceded by horrendous world chaos that includes the elimination of Israel and the West. There is no negotiating with those that believe this. I hope the only reason we haven't already turned Iran into glass is because we haven't made enough bombs yet.

I agree, that more talk will not work with fanatics ("the case of nuclear development of Iran is closed"), Iranian population, or not.
Radio "Free Iran" could help, maybe, if we are ready to wait 40 years. "Surgical" air campaign will not work either, since Aimanutjob and his fanatic brothers were watching CNN snippets from Iraq many years ago and had enough time simply dug deeper (much deeper).
The only thing which would work now, or in near future (and one needs a pair of really big, brass balls to do it) is to bomb known nuclear installations and bases of the Revolutionary Guards with the nuclear weapons. The damages and psychological shock could be sufficient to stop the programs and topple the Mullahs (by the rest of the Military). The best of (all the bad) moments would be probably just after the first nuclear test.
But I think we will do it only much later, after a nuclear device will be exploded in the US, or in some other NATO country.

Iran is not the Soviet Union, and whatever internal tensions it has are not subject to manipulation by the means Capt. Ed espouses. I'm sorry to say that Capt. Ed is engaged in wishful thinking here, which is understandable given the consequences of overt war with Iran, but nonetheless very ill-advised.

"Does Captain Ed really believe that diplomacy and sanctions will persuade the mullahcracy?, or that information dispensed to the people will topple it?

"I'm frankly surprised that Captain Ed believes such things will work."

Captain Ed is retarded on this issue.

Was it Mark Twain who said that diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie!" until you can find a big enough rock?

YOUR FEEL GOOD READING OF THE DAY.

Irony: using nuclear weapons on a country to prevent it from acquiring same.

Political pressure on Iran could work IF (and this is really a big if) China and Russia would be on board on this one. Europe starts to wake up to the threat, but China and Russia seems to enjoy our anxiety. It takes some pressure from them on the human rights, trade imbalance and so on.
Just look at all this from the Iranian point of view: a new war is unthinkable in the present political climate in US, not without a big, big trigger and they are not going to provide us one, the Democrats and the Academia are ready to ally with anybody anti Bush, Russia and China support them, Germany provides them with all the equipment and spare parts they are asking for, the name of the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency is Mohamed, the centrifuges are spinning, overall it is the next best thing to the 72 virgins, really.
So my assessment is that the Iranian nuke is only a question of time and let’s hope the actual thread from the Mullahs is not as big, as we think.

"Posted by gregdn | October 2, 2007 11:32 AM

Irony: using nuclear weapons on a country to prevent it from acquiring same. "

---

And the irony is??

Captain Ed says: "Does that mean the bombing should start in the next couple of months? Count me among those who think a bombing attack on Iran would be disastrous, especially for the long-term relations between the Iranian people and the West."

The exact same thing was said before we attacked Iraq. The Iraqis hated Saddam, but if we invaded, they'd fight like tigers to protect him out of national pride, and they'd hate us forever.

Well, the vast majority of Iraqis refused to fight. All the civilian defense-corps "volunteers" abandoned their trenches, and the army deserted. The Iraqis made an informed decision to opt out.

I think you're thinking in terms of Vietnam-era B-52 carpet bombing. If we use precision-guided munitions to target only the mullahs, the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, the offensive military assets, and the nuclear plants, I seriously doubt that the Iranians will hate us forever.

We need to give middle easterners at least some credit for knowing what's in their own best interests and what their realistic options are. They're not all primitive tribal boneheads incapable of rational thought.

And even if they do hate us, we can't let that influence our decisions. Can you imagine General Curtis LeMay telling Roosevelt and Truman that we couldn't bomb Japan because it would damage the long-term relations between the Japanese people and the West?

Oh, c'mon. Surely a bombing attack on Iran would be far more "disastrous" for Iran than for us. I am so very tired of the endless wailing about how bad war with Iran will or could be. We are already at war with Iran, and have been since 1979. The question is whether we will destroy their government now, while they are still relatively weak (pre-nuclear) or whether we will wait until they have destroyed one or more western targets (e.g., New York City, Wash DC, London, Tel Aviv, etc) with a nuclear weapon, most likely snuck up into a port in a fake-flagged ship, or perhaps even flown directly over our heads within a passenger airliner (from Iran). I am tired of waiting. Flatten the evil Iranian government and their bomb-making programs now!! For if we wait too long, millions (no exaggeration) of innocents will surely die.

You guys assume that "we" would retaliate against Iran if NYC gets nuked. How can you be so sure "we" would?

How are you going to "prove" it was Iran that nuked us...? Do you think you can convince enough Americans that Iran was behind it? How many nuclear "experts" do you need to convince Americans that Iran is the "guilty bastard"?

Remember: 1/3 of Dhimmicrats think 9/11 was an inside job.

For some time now I had this Tom Clancy moment:
1. Iran brings in slowly, piece by piece (in the diplomatic mail) a number of A-bombs to their embassies in key Western Capitals.
2. Iran detonates one of the bombs, causing confusion, panic (whodunit?) and radioactive fallout taking big part of a capital out of commission for ~500 years (remember, ground level, first generation nuke).
3. Iran makes a statement, that unless we behave, there is more ready to go.
Would we attack them then, and who would be first?

TomB, that nightmare scenario is reason enough to never let the mullahs get nukes. Though they are more likely to use the threat to keep the West sidelined while they establish hegemony in the ME, which is why Saudi Arabia et al will want to buy there own nukes soon if Iran isn't stopped.

swabjockey05, the Dhimmicrats would be irrelevant, there'll be plenty of Americans who would want to see Iran turned into a sheet of glass.

Robert, Tom W, the most likely scenario is the Herman option, for which we already have assets in place. It does not envision a ground invasion, rather the military actions it does envision are:

1. Declare a one-country blockade of all of Iran's oil shipments out -- and gasonline shipments in; a complete freeze-out. Everyone else gets to ship freely through the strait... just not Iran;
2. Launch a "comprehensive air campaign" against Iran's air defenses, air bases, communications grid, and missile sites along the PG;
3. Continue the campaign against the nuclear sites and all supporting infrastructure, including roads, bridges, power plants that serve the nuclear development centers at Natanz and Bushehr, and so forth;
4. Finally, and most important, continue the campaign to take out all of Iran's gasoline refineries.
5. American special forces would seize all of Iran's offshore wells and pumping stations, from the strait to Kharg Island (the small, unmarked island just off Iran's coast, due east of Kuwait and about 10 o'clock from Bushehr).

All you guys assume we can just bomb Iran until they put a government in place that we like.
Odds are a bombing campaign would make them install something even worse.
If you're serious about stopping Iran from getting the Bomb you'd better think invasion and occupation a la Japan.