All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

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.

I agree with this 100%. There is no way we should even expect our intelligence services to know where they are. They would have to be telepathic and omnicient to have this type of information.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

We may have to use a massive bombing campaign, but the risk/benefit equation would seem to weigh in favor of the same. I am not arguing that our intelligence will be perfect, but I am not sure that there program is at a point where it needs to be perfect. UNless they have multiple nukes, ready for delivery, in disparate locations, it would seem that we could take our a certain percentage of the program and set them back several years or more, in which time other means might alleviate or mitigate the risk.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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

That is the war part, that did end in 6 weeks. We toppled the enemies government. The peace/nationbuilding part is taking longer, but I don't read his statement to include that part.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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?

(2). Of course, you know my view that invading Iraq was not "necessary" to either ensuring our security or winning the war on radical Islam, and was detrimental to the latter. (On the former, I think it's been a very expensive wash, at best -- though much worse for the soldiers actually dying in it).

But the damage to our credibility makes it very difficult for the Bush Admin to argue, as it did with Iraq, that a war will be a short, easy, inexpensive proposition. This was part of how the Admin sold the war to the US population, and also tried to sell it to allies (with less, though not no, success).

If anything, Iraq has proven Powell's "Pottery Barn" theory in spades. We broke it, we bought it, and according to Bush pulling out anytime before 2009 would be a disaster. So, how many other countries can we afford to occupy like this?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That is the war part, that did end in 6 weeks. We toppled the enemies government. The peace/nationbuilding part is taking longer, but I don't read his statement to include that part.

Ah. I forgot about all the statements about a years-long occupation. Musta slipped my mind.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this 100%. There is no way we should even expect our intelligence services to know where they are. They would have to be telepathic and omnicient to have this type of information.

I think Israeli intelligence could pull it off. I can't believe that we shouldn't expect our intelligence to have some idea. Not perfect knowledge, but some knowledge. Enough to disrupt the program.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think Israeli intelligence could pull it off. I can't believe that we shouldn't expect our intelligence to have some idea. Not perfect knowledge, but some knowledge. Enough to disrupt the program.

The same folks who didn't know that Hezbollah had cruise missiles and sophisticated anti-tank rockets? Hmmm.

[Shape Shifter]

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.

Well, I guess we found out what they eat.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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?

I am not advocating anything. I am just saying that going nuclear is not an option. We didn't go there in Korea when we were for all intents and purposes at war with China and for a while they were beating us quite badly. A limited nuclear campaign in Manchuria would have saved probably tens of thousands of American soldier’s lives (and turned the war around) but both Truman, Eisenhower, and the whole establishment (except for Macarthur) knew it wasn't an option.

It wasn't then, it isn't now.

I don't believe we will go nuclear to save Israel, but that doesn't mean Israel won't.

[Spanky]

Pat Buchanen in his latest book claims:

"The Republican Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is in the grip of a cult called 'Economism.' It is all about money now. The GOP worships at the 'Church of GDP'"

I wish this were true. Unfortunately it is not. Especially in California. The Governator works with the chamber but the California Republican Party is not controlled by the Chamber.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pat Buchanen in his latest book claims:

"The Republican Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is in the grip of a cult called 'Economism.' It is all about money now. The GOP worships at the 'Church of GDP'"

I wish this were true. Unfortunately it is not. Especially in California. The Governator works with the chamber but the California Republican Party is not controlled by the Chamber.

Dude is apparently at least a decade behind the times.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Ah. I forgot about all the statements about a years-long occupation. Musta slipped my mind.

Here are a couple of quotes, below, from 2001, that led me to believe it would be a long hard struggle. I could keep looking, but I don't want to waste more time. did you really believe at the start of the Iraq campaing that it would last 6 weeks, start to finish? I didn't, I thought 5-10 years. And I still supported it. I honestly can't believe that any educated person believed the whole thing would be a quick slam dunk and the Dem Senators who run for President in 08 should be held to such a standard when they try to repudiate their votes for the war based on some assinine quote from Rumsfield.

September 20, 2001
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.



October 8, 2001
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It isn't going to be solved with a single counter-attack against one individual, it's going to be a long term conflict."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Dude is apparently at least a decade behind the times.

More like a quarter century.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(2). Of course, you know my view that invading Iraq was not "necessary" to either ensuring our security or winning the war on radical Islam, and was detrimental to the latter. (On the former, I think it's been a very expensive wash, at best -- though much worse for the soldiers actually dying in it).

But the damage to our credibility makes it very difficult for the Bush Admin to argue, as it did with Iraq, that a war will be a short, easy, inexpensive proposition. This was part of how the Admin sold the war to the US population, and also tried to sell it to allies (with less, though not no, success).

If anything, Iraq has proven Powell's "Pottery Barn" theory in spades. We broke it, we bought it, and according to Bush pulling out anytime before 2009 would be a disaster. So, how many other countries can we afford to occupy like this?

Iran would be different. There is an internal movement for change that would be our fifth column.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not advocating anything. I am just saying that going nuclear is not an option. We didn't go there in Korea when we were for all intents and purposes at war with China and for a while they were beating us quite badly. A limited nuclear campaign in Manchuria would have saved probably tens of thousands of American soldier’s lives (and turned the war around) but both Truman, Eisenhower, and the whole establishment (except for Macarthur) knew it wasn't an option.

It wasn't then, it isn't now.

I don't believe we will go nuclear to save Israel, but that doesn't mean Israel won't.

The stakes are higher. tens of thousands of troops don't equate with the continued existence of Israel or hegemony in the ME. Whether one believes it justifies war or not, oil is a factor here. If Iran controls the ME, not only can they wipe out Israel, they can shut down the industrialized world's economy. Or pick and choose.