All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Adder, there's an old expression.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste if time and it annoys the pig,

It's a legimitate question. If someone gets into a cockpit and crashes a plane, you will likely blame bush for lack of security. So things that could affect security need to be looked at with a wary eye. If you have agent that could blind the stewardess allowing someone access tp the cockpit, how is that not legimate?

As a flier, I am concerned.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but that was never the goal in Iraq. Six week occupation, remember? Just long enough to clean up all the candy wrappers and dead flowers.

I never said it was. You started this off by saying if the US said it was going to make a premptive strike against Togo - would you believe it - yes I would believe it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You can fantasize all you want about nuking Iran but it's something that even the Bush Admin has not discussed (ask Spanky).

The WaPo and Sidney Hersh would disagree with you.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."


journalist Seymour Hersh, makes three main claims: US clandestine activities inside Iran have increased

Planning for a possible air attack has intensified

The option of using of tactical nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You can fantasize all you want about nuking Iran but it's something that even the Bush Admin has not discussed (ask Spanky).

And the fact that this is our only military option is part of the damage that the Iraq adventure has caused.

You are right - nuking Iran never has been and never will be an option. Surgical strikes are out because the program is spread out. The only way to end the program would be to invade the country. However, the Iraq invasion has made that a lot easier. We conquered Iraq without even stubbing our toe. We could invade Iran, take out the nuclear stuff and leave. Because we are occupying Iraq, and know exactly what are capabilities are, this will be alot easier than it would have been if we were just sitting in Kuwait at the discretion of the Kuwaiti government.

However, even though it will be a lot easier now that we are in Iraq, that does not mean it will be easy. We could do it but the resources and manpower involved would involve major sacrifices by the American people. The war in Iraq has not effected the average American at all.

Because of the committment involved, I don't see it as an option unless Iran does something really, really agressive.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
However, the Iraq invasion has made that a lot easier.

What color is the sky in your world? With which troops would we do this?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


The option of using of tactical nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table.

And sacrificing virgins to win the war is on the table (all options are being reviewed) but the chances of using Nukes in Iran are about the same chances as monkey flying out of my derriere.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
What color is the sky in your world? With which troops would we do this?

Do you know how many combat divisions we have? Do you know how many are deployed in Iraq?

We have the troops. It would just take sacrifices (strategic and personal) that we have not had to make since we invaded Iraq.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said it was. You started this off by saying if the US said it was going to make a premptive strike against Togo - would you believe it - yes I would believe it.

When did Bush say the Iraq thing would be a six week proposition, start to finish? I thought he always said that the WoT would be hard work and would take years and Americans had to strap it on for the foreseeable future. No?

Personally I expected we would be in Iraq 5-10 years, and I imagine I will be right.

When are we pulling the troops out of Weurope? Korea? At 50 plus years, I would think its time....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How do you what (surely) classified intelligence says about where they are?

Fair point.

Let me put it this way, instead: The likelihood that our intelligence services (or Israel's, or anyone else's*) knows where the key installations are, with sufficient accuracy to allow for precision bombing that will significantly hinder or delay Iran's nuclear development without requiring the commitment of ground forces or a massive bombing campaign, strikes me as extremely exceedingly small.

Iran is not conducting this research in the open. This is a closed society and an issue of the utmost secrecy -- one likely to be buried in deep and remote bunkers.

OTOH, we knew where Saddam's WMD were and they didn't even exist, so I could be wrong.








*except for maybe Iran's, but they probably aren't talking to us.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You can fantasize all you want about nuking Iran but it's something that even the Bush Admin has not discussed (ask Spanky).

And the fact that this is our only military option is part of the damage that the Iraq adventure has caused.

If you mean targetted surgical strikes at the installations, the fact that we don't know where they are could be a hindrance. But maybe Curveball can tell us.

I wasn't referring to Nukes. I'm not sure what boots on the ground would do for us if our only goal was to hinder the nuke capacity. More likely would be a air bombing mission. Unless you are talking about regime change, in which case I agree with you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you know how many combat divisions we have? Do you know how many are deployed in Iraq?

We have the troops. It would just take sacrifices (strategic and personal) that we have not had to make since we invaded Iraq.

Sacrifices!!?!? that sounds hard. Could we just give them the keys and change the name to United Islamic Republics of America?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said it was. You started this off by saying if the US said it was going to make a premptive strike against Togo - would you believe it - yes I would believe it.

Sorry -- I forgot your inability to read a post in anything but the most absolutely literal sense. I recognize that the US military could probably overthrow the Togolese government faster than most people could figure out where that is. So let me phrase this more carefully:

If Bush said that we were going to attack, say, Togo, in order to eliminate a terrorist threat, and that we were going to accomplish the same goals we set out to accomplish in Iraq -- transition to a new government, rebuilding, stability, etc. -- and that this would happen in a couple of months and wouldn't cost anything, would you believe that?

Of course, I suspect that you would. As they say, a neo-con is someone who has been mugged by reality (and, having thus determined that reality is not very nice, has decided to avoid it forevermore).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
And sacrificing virgins to win the war is on the table (all options are being reviewed) but the chances of using Nukes in Iran are about the same chances as monkey flying out of my derriere.

I don't know, about the former. Or the latter, I suppose. I don't want to know about the latter.

I think if a US President, Bush or otherwise, is faced with the choice of an impending Second Holocaust or using nukes on Iran to prevent, the choice is hard, but one that history will dictate that he/she has the guts to make. Much like Truman did. The last Dem of any repute.

What would you advocate, letting Ahmadinejad wipe Israel off the map. while we petitioned the UN to intervene?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sorry -- I forgot your inability to read a post in anything but the most absolutely literal sense. I recognize that the US military could probably overthrow the Togolese government faster than most people could figure out where that is. So let me phrase this more carefully:

If Bush said that we were going to attack, say, Togo, in order to eliminate a terrorist threat, and that we were going to accomplish the same goals we set out to accomplish in Iraq -- transition to a new government, rebuilding, stability, etc. -- and that this would happen in a couple of months and wouldn't cost anything, would you believe that?

Should the equation be based on a (1) quick in and out and a low cost or (2) what is necessary to ensure our security and win the GWoT?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
When did Bush say the Iraq thing would be a six week proposition, start to finish? I thought he always said that the WoT would be hard work and would take years and Americans had to strap it on for the foreseeable future. No?

Personally I expected we would be in Iraq 5-10 years, and I imagine I will be right.

When are we pulling the troops out of Weurope? Korea? At 50 plus years, I would think its time....

Rummy did -- six days, maybe six weeks, I doubt it'll last six months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm