Sometimes the outright stupidity and shallowness of thinking in the general news media staggers me. But before I blast them, I need to start with myself, for getting so close initially, and then not putting 2+2 together.

Last night I mocked the U.S. military's plan to test a 700-ton bomb in the Nevada desert. I noted that no plane every built could come close to delivering a conventional bomb even a third that size. I wrote it off as a blustering response to Iran's refusal to stop uranium enrichment, but not the test of a serious munition.

I suggested, "If the Pentagon wants to send a real message to the Iranians, they could test a B61-11. I think the folks in Las Vegas and Tehran would be much more impressed with the show."

It wasn't until over 12 hours later that I figured out that something very similar to that might be the point of the test.

The 700-ton bomb will use close to 600-tons of a special mixture of ammonium nitrate-based explosives.

According to Global Security.org, the B61 Mod 11 thermonuclear bomb has a W-61 EPW (earth penetrating warhead) that ranges in yield from 360-kiloton strategic bomb down, if Nuclear Weapon Archive.org is correct, to a tactical penetrator with a yield as low as .3 kilotons. If I'm doing my math correctly, a 0.3 Kt weapon is the theoretical equivalent of 300 tons yield in a convention explosive under certain conditions.

Could the 700-ton bomb test be a surrogate for the shockwave effect of a low-yield .3 Kt B61-11 nuclear warhead?

Neither the Washington Post nor Reuters, nor any other news agency seems to have caught on to this possibility. Then again, they haven't figured out yet that this massive bomb being tested could never get airborne, so this shouldn't be a surprise.

We appear to be running a "nukeless" nuclear test of the kind of ground-penetrating and literally ground-breaking bomb we may be forced to use again Iran. The "empty threat" I mocked yesterday isn't very funny anymore.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 3 kb.

On the day that Iran stated it would not halt uranium enrichment, the U.S. military made what some are interpreting as a thinly-veilled threat:

The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said.

"I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters.

"We also have -- are you ready for this - a 700-tonne explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada," he said.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this would be one of the most pathetic messages we've ever sent, as it is by far the emptiest threat we can make. To put it plainly (or perhaps planely), this bomb project could never get off the ground.

Literally.

According to the article, this bomb weighs "700 tonnes." It doesn't exactly specify if this is 700 long tons ( 2,240 lbs/ton, or a total of 1,588,000 lbs) or 700 short tons (2,000 lbs/ton, or a total of 1,400,000 lbs), but in the end the key detail is that no airplane on earth can carry such a payload.

The massive American C5 Galaxy carries a payload of 240,000 lbs. The world's largest cargo airplane is the Antonov An-225, which carries a maximum payload of "just" 551,150 lbs.

This is an empty threat, as the Iranians surely know.

If the Pentagon wants to send a real message to the Iranians, they could test a B61-11. I think the folks in Las Vegas and Tehran would be much more impressed with the show.

Update: a closer look reveals that the 700-lb bomb may be a surrogate for a low yield B61-11.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

News is now breaking in the trial of the so-called "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth plane on 9/11 and fly it into the White House.

Via Breitbart:

Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House.

Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom as he disclosed details he had never revealed before. It was in stark contrast to Moussaoui's previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions.

Quite frankly, it is hard to trust anything Zacarias Moussaoui has to say, but if he is telling the truth that his target was the White House, it might provide an answer to the question of Flight 93's target that September morning.

It has long been suspected that the hijackers on Flight 93 were likely targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House. As Moussaoui was arrested just one month before the attacks, it seems likely that the other the terror cells would stick with their original targets instead of trying to retarget shortly before the attack. If Moussaoui's statement it true that his target was the White House, then it would seem likely that the terrorists on Flight 93 had the Capitol Building as their target.

We know that the heroes of Flight 93 prevented an attack on a Washington target when they stormed the cockpit over Pennsylvania that September morning. If Moussaoui is correct, we now have a reason to suspect exactly what it was they saved.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

The NY Times has a huge non-story today, where it was found that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did not wait until the week before the invasion of Iraq to do their war planning.

When presented in that context, of course, it really is a non-story, other than the fact that the document provides some interesting historical context of the kind of commentary that goes on between leaders in a run-up to a conflict.

Ed Morrissey says pretty much what I would say about the matter, summing it up:

In short, the Times presents us with a memo that shows the US and UK understanding that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN nor voluntarily disarm or step aside; history proved them correct on all those assertions. Given those as reality, the two nations prepared for war. If the Times finds this surprising, it demonstrates their cluelessness all the more.

I suspect it isn't cluelessness as much as it is political opportunism by the Times, which has consistently covered this conflict in a way that makes al Jazeera unnecessary.

Bush Lied, People Died. I think I've heard that before.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Thoughts on American combat journalists, the lazy and the dead, from Mind in the Qatar.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

The war in Iraq is sometimes a numbers game.

Yesterday:

About 100 masked gunmen stormed a prison near the Iranian border Tuesday, cutting phone wires, freeing all the inmates and leaving behind a scene of devastation--20 dead policemen, burned-out cars and a smoldering jailhouse.

At least 10 attackers were killed in the dawn assault on the Muqdadiyah lockup on the eastern fringe of the Sunni Triangle, police said.

33 inmates were released in the attack, roughly half or (according to some reports, more) were insurgents, and the other half were common criminals. Ten insurgents were thought to have died, along with 20 police officers.

Battle result: 20 Iraqi policemen killed, 16 (est.) insurgents escaped from the prison, and ten insurgents were killed. A rough net “gain” of 26 bodies for the insurgency and a palpable P.R. boost that lasted all of 24 hours.

Today:

Insurgents attacked a police station Wednesday for a second day in a row, but U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 50 of them after a two-hour gun battle.

About 60 gunmen attacked the police station in Madain, south of Baghdad, with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles, said police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammadawi. U.S. troops and a special Iraqi police unit responded, catching the insurgents in crossfire, he said.

Four police were killed, including the commander of the special unit, and five were wounded, al-Mohammadawi said. None of the attackers died, and among the captives was a Syrian.

Battle result: 4 Iraqi policemen killed, 0 insurgents escaped from the prison, and 50 insurgents were captured. The result is net “gain” for the day of 46 captured insurgents.

If recent history is any indicator, those captured will provide significant information. Typically, these large-scale captures end up revealing operational details, exposing ammunition caches, and releasing other vital intelligence information that may end up shutting down the insurgency in this area.

The media will more than likely present these two insurgent assaults as being equal, but opposite in effect. This of course is far from true.

The insurgency is much smaller than Iraqi police and military forces, and a two-day net loss of 20 men, especially 20 live men that can threaten the larger network with the information they can reveal, is a far greater loss for the insurgency.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

In a speech he is to give later this afternoon in London, Tony Blair is correct that the essential nature of the "long war" we continue to fight is an ideological one:

"This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization," Blair will say in a speech this afternoon, according to extracts released by his official spokesman.

"'We' is not the West. 'We' are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. 'We' are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts," he will say.

While there is no indication that Blair had Afghani Christian Abdul Rahman in mind with this speech, those words easily apply to the case of Rahman, a 40-ish Afghani that converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago, and faces the death penalty in Afghanistan for leaving the “religion of peace.”

I wrote about this last night with some restraint, trying to keep in mind that Afghanis live in a far more primitive, basic culture than our own, one that has not substantially changed in the thousand years since Muslims invaded the Hindu kingdoms of Gandhaar & Vaahic Pradesh. The mountain range which dominates the country was named in honor of one of Islam's greatest genocides; "Hindu Kush" is Persian for "Hindu slaughter." Millions of Hindus were put to the sword or forcibly converted to Islam in Afghanistan, and Islamic bloodlust in Afghanistan seems far from sated.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.

Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.

"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him."

Rahman's trial, which started Thursday, is thought to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan. It goes to the heart of the struggle between Islamic reformists and fundamentalists in the country, which is still recovering from 23 years of war and the harsh rule of the Taliban, a radical religious regime that fell in late 2001.

Even under the more moderate government now in power, Islamic law is supposed to be followed, and many believe it requires the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion.

"We are Muslim, our fathers were Muslim, our grandfathers were Muslim," said Abdul Manan, Rahman's father, who is 75. "This is an Islamic country. Imagine if your son told a police commander, also a Muslim, that he is a Christian. How would this affect you? It's very difficult for us."

As Tony Blair's speech states, we are not in a clash between civilizations, but a clash about civilization. What Blair has not directly stated is that most Muslim countries have precious little civilization, or practice civilized behavior. They are trapped in a backward culture hundreds of years in the past. While we hoped that bringing democracy to them would be a start, the sadistic nature of fundamentalist Islam bared by the case of Abdul Rahman makes me wonder if a slow conversion to a moremodernized society is the correct course of action after all.

We did not deliver Afghanis from the Taliban to allow Afghanis to perpetrate the same crimes against basic human decency. If this murderous intolerance truly is the essence of fundamentalist Islam, then we need to rethink our basic approach to the "religion of peace."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life in Afghanistan. His crime (h/t Michelle Malkin, who has the round-up) is converting to Christianity:

Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.

Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.

So Afghans are willing to take our economic aid to develop their battered infrastructure, our medicines to cure their ills, our EOD teams to clear their mines, and our soldiers to hold the Taliban at bay, and yet they are willing to kill a man because he has taken to heart another contribution from us in Christianity.

The "tolerant" judge hopes for a peaceful resolution:

"We will ask him if he has changed his mind about being a Christian," Mawlazezadah says. "If he has, we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."

Afghan is a country with its own laws, and we cannot force them to accept converts to other religions when the most extreme interpretations of their law supposes they have legal "right" to kill Abdul Rahman.

They, however, do not have any claim to economic or military aid from civilized nations. We have no moral obligation to support a government that would allow Abdul Rahman to be killed. It goes without saying that were we to withdraw our support, the "tolerant" judge himself might meet a judgement of his own at the hands of the remaining elements of the Taliban.

Judge Mawlazezadah should be introduced to an American phrase attributed to Ben Franklin at the signing of our Declaration of Independence:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

The neck Judge Mawlazezadah saves may be his own.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals claim to "support the troops but not the war."

What utter liars they are.

Four months ago in the Iraqi city of Haditha, an IED exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed a nearby building and killed 15 people. Three were children. The Pentagon has now launched a criminal investigation.

Those are the facts.

There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim.

But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.

Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

Steve Clemmons states in his Washington Note:

Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon Investigating Another U.S. Military Atrocity.
When will Rumsfeld be held accountable and fired? [my bold. - ed]

A crime has not even been established, and yet Clemmons and his nauseous ilk have already deemed our Marines guilty, and presume to pass sentence.

Steve Soto at the Left Coaster is equally as charitable, asserting:

At a time when Rummy and others say that things in Iraq are better than reported, and that bad news is the result of bloggers and other enemies of the truth, we find out today that if it hadn't been for videotape, the Pentagon would have blamed the deaths of 15 Iraqis including children four months ago on a roadside bomb. In fact, based on a Time magazine article and the inconvenient videotape of the bodies, the Pentagon now confirms they have opened a criminal investigation to see if our own troops gunned down innocent Iraqi civilians and children as a result of that roadside bombing in Haditha. This comes at the same time that Iraqi police are now accusing US soldiers of executing 11 Iraqis last week, including a 75 year-old woman and an infant.

[snip]

Maybe we can call a blogger's ethics conference now on why we are inferior to whatever propaganda is spewed by Rummy. You can bet that if Rummy could have snuffed out that Iraqi journalism student and grabbed that videotape, he would have. [my bold. - ed]

"Support the troops?"

Not ours.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:28 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 3 kb.

Thousands of news stories have been slavishly devoted to a brewing civil war in Iraq.

Acording to USA Today:

Â…about 15 Americans and 73 Iraqis are killed or injured each day. A USA TODAY analysis of U.S. military data shows the number of U.S. forces killed during the war has declined steadily since November.

But while preliminary report cites statistics that show a decline in U.S. forces killed, other statistics show an exact opposite trend in another theater of operation far closer to home.

The January-June 2005 murder rate is up 9.3% in cities with a population of 100,000 to 249,999, and the region "spiraling out of control" isn't the Middle East, but is the Midwest, with a murder rate jumping 4.9%.

Forget Baghdad, let's pull out of Des Moines.

Update: Ed Driscoll notes this might be an extension of the Cartoon War.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Task Force 6-26 is under the stark, naked bulb of the New York Times crack investigative staff (the one that never makes mistakes), and picked up something from their unhealthy obsession with abuse at Abu Ghraib:

Most of the people interviewed for this article were midlevel civilian and military Defense Department personnel who worked with Task Force 6-26 and said they witnessed abuses, or who were briefed on its operations over the past three years.

Many were initially reluctant to discuss Task Force 6-26 because its missions are classified. But when pressed repeatedly by reporters who contacted them, they agreed to speak about their experiences and observations out of what they said was anger and disgust over the unit's treatment of detainees and the failure of task force commanders to punish misconduct more aggressively. The critics said the harsh interrogations yielded little information to help capture insurgents or save American lives. [my bold - ed.]

Once again, the Times is unable or unwilling to provide any direct evidence of their charges, relying on anonymous sources and injuries that could have come from combat against American forces or resisting capture as well as the abuse they allege.

I hope survivors of the overzealous NY Times interrogations weren't coerced into giving statements under duress that would free insurgents or endanger American lives.

I'd hate to have to drag Bill Keller in front of a tribunal...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Several bloggers... okay, a bunch of bloggers... have noticed increasing al Qaeda "chatter" as high or high than the months leading up to 9/11. Many are attaching this "chatter" to a significant date around the corner, the March 20th third anniversary of the U.S invasion of Iraq.

Some folks are spooked over the possibility that the NCAA mens's basketball tournament might be a target, and today's scare in San Diego didn't help to quite that theory.

Quite frankly, if I were an al Qaeda planner, a basketball game wouldn't be my first pick.

I'd consider the NCAA tournament arenas too hard of a target to easily penetrate, without enough civilian targets to warrant the effort needed for a major attack. The Twin Towers were "soft" targets to a certain extent and had roughly 50,000 potential victims. Why waste limited resources on a post-9/11 basketball arena with increased security, an unfavorable layout, and far fewer people? It doesn't make the most tactical sense.

And there are other issues.

In addition to pure carnage, al Qaeda is also into symbolism. The Twin Towers were a symbol of our economic reach and might, just as the Pentagon was the symbol of our military power. Flight 93 ended up in a field in Shanksville, PA, but was more than likely targeted at one of the seats of our political power, either the White House or the U.S Capitol.

If you were a terrorist planner, imagine a scenario where:

• the potential victim pool more than twice that of the Twin Towers
• the target is "soft," completely exploitable in some way
• there is some cultural significance to the target
• the attack can be tied to a culturally important date

If you were a member of al Qaeda with that tempting target in front of you, what would you say?

How about, “Gentlemen, start your engines.”

NASCAR, while scoffed at by some, is the second most popular professional sport in U.S. television ratings, and draws by far the largest crowds of any U.S sporting event. The NEXTEL Cup Series is the premiere division of NASCAR, and they happen to be racing at the Atlanta Motor Speedway, a 1.5-mile track, this Sunday, March 19.

By the time the race starts at 1:30 PM local time (9:30 PM in the evening in the Middle East), up to 125,000 fans could be in attendance, along with the dozens of drivers to which fans have developed fierce loyalties.

An unmodified single-engine plane can carry a bioweapon agent over this concentrated open-air target, disperse it into the crowd by the crudest of means, simply pouring (a powder) or spraying (an aerosol) over the grandstands and infield, and run a significant chance of infecting hundreds or thousands or more, just before intentionally crashing the plane into the stands in horrific fireball in front of a live nationwide audience.

Footage of the crash is sure to be played over and over again on the 20th throughout the Middle East, with credit claimed by al Qaeda on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It could be hours or days later after infected fans have scattered to their hometowns across the country that symptoms begin to show, with a predictable public panic ensuing in a country already primed by the media for an avian flu epidemic.

Chatter?

I sure hope the NSA is listening...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The NSA isn't listening anymore. The democrats drove the terrorist to some other type of communications or to using multiple phones on each conversation (remember how many thousand throw away cell phones the bought immediately after the traitor released the information and the traitors at the NYT published it). Evidently the 2,000+ military deaths their terrorist support has caused isn't enough so they want to get a few hundred thousand killed in the U.S. They are a blood thirsty bunch of bastards aren't they. All in hope of picking up a few seats in congress. I blame the democrats for thousands of American and millions of Asian deaths in the 60/70's and now they want more blood on their hands.

Posted by: scrapiron at March 17, 2006 12:23 AM (Ffvoi)

2 Your assessment of security is not valid. You are assuming that they will use smart security screening. I attended the Sugar Bowl several years ago and they use the dumb security as in the airport. By that, if you are blond, 50 or greater, and clearly not a terrorist they do everything except a strip search. If you fit the profile of a terrorist they escort you to your seat and apoligize for any inconveince.

Posted by: David Caskey at March 17, 2006 10:03 AM (6wTpy)

3 I was at the Regional Tournament in San Diego. In effect there was no security. Riddle me this, how many times have al Qaeda (or other Islamic Terrorists) placed a bomb. Pre-screening a facility is necessary, but probably ineffective. The audience has to be screened - and we were not... On the larger topic, al Qaeda hit a financial and a military target. The next target will be a symbol of our 'decadent' culture or our scientific (and thus secular) community. They will hit a college or Hollywood or centers of decadent culture.

Posted by: Boghie at March 17, 2006 08:57 PM (Tkg0j)

4 "The next target will be a symbol of our 'decadent' culture" Sporting events,Shopping Malls,Movie Theaters,Small Towns,Big Cities. If(?)they have the martyrs they need to carry out attacks in this country,they will attack all these places at the same time to ensure wide spread panic and doubt among the people that the government cannot protect its citizens. Is the "other shoe" about to drop"? only time will tell. One thing is certain,the left in this nation will call for us to surrender.

Posted by: FireFireFire at March 18, 2006 06:03 PM (6VFW4)

5 Are you kidding me? No terrorist has the guts to pull this crap at a Stock Car race! There are zero people there that would feel sorry about turning the entire middle east into a glass parking lot! Go Mark Martin!

Posted by: dub at March 20, 2006 04:46 PM (iyO1q)

6 The Mall of America

Posted by: Dougman at April 22, 2006 03:56 AM (vBqy7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As folks on the right and left are both botching their reporting on Operation Swarmer, which CNN accurately reports (for a change) as the "largest air assault operation since the invasion of Iraq nearly three years ago" I want to take a second to get things straightened out.

The is a huge difference between an "air assault" and a "bombing raid."

This is a Blackhawk helicopter, most often used to transport men and equipment to combat zones:

This is a F/A-18 Hornet, one of the premiere strike fighters in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and an aircraft often called upon to drop guided and unguided bombs on the bad guys:

Now, which do you see warming up on the runway in this CNN photo prior to Operation Swarmer?

An "airborne assault" is moving infantry units via air transport to a combat zone. It is often accomplished via helicopters, but can also be accomplished by dropping soldiers from airplanes via parachutes or in glider insertions, though I don't think we've used gliders since Operation Market Garden in World War II.

We've been using helicopter air assaults for over 40 years, and bringing soldiers to a combat zone by helicopter is quite different than an airstrike dropping bombs.

Let's see if we can keep that little detail straight, okay?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:15 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Pentagon is looking into the possibility of striking Iran's nuclear facilities, as Iran may force a military response by refusing to back down from the further development of a nuclear weapons program, despite growing international pressure.

I covered the subject in Thunder over Iran in December in some detail, and do not doubt for a second that the IDF/AF is capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear facilities if they do take this route. Damage, of course, could be far more extensive if Israeli commando units on the ground, or other allied air and ground forces also participated in the strike. Unsurprisingly, Great Britain and the United States have assets in the region capable of conducting such a strike.

What remains shrouded in doubt is the retaliatory capability and intentions of Iran and its allies.

Iran is rumored in some circles to already have some nuclear weapons capability, but those rumors are far from confirmed. Iran can, however, potentially strike Israel with its Shihab-3 missile carrying conventional or non-nuclear WMDs that it may have in its possession. A WMD strike by Iran would be counterproductive and justify more reprisal attacks against it, but as Iran has not missed a chance to make a bad decision to date, so it would hardly be surprising if this eventuality happened.

There is also the probability that Iran's ally Syria might be pushed by Tehran to honor their mutual defense pact by launching an attack against Israel, but I suspect that Syria would not uphold their end of the agreement. Faced with an unstable regime at home and the quite real possibility of crushing military defeat at the hands of the IDF in the east and an a nearly-assured response (or threat of a response) from U.S. air and armored forces stationed in Iraq's al-Anbar province to the west, not to mention the very real possibility of a coup at home, Syria's strongman would likely chose to sit this one out.

If Assad does not honor the pact, he risks losing the support of his Iranian ally. If he does honor the pact, he risks losing his country. Either eventually is a plus for the United States and Israel.

Iran-supported terrorist organization Hamas would almost certainly attack Israel with a spate of suicide bombings and rocket attacks in response to an Israeli strike on Iran, but this would actually play into the hands of the Israelis, further delegitimizing the Hamas-led Palestinian government and providing Israel with an excuse to crack down harder against Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the West Bank, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. Again, an armed retaliatory response is likely to be more of a benefit to Israel.

In many respects, the continued press forward by the Iranian government with their nuclear ambitions could very well trigger a small war that changes the fate of Iran's mullahs, their relationship if not the very existence of their Baathist allies in Syria, and the continued existence of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

I have a better question for the Pentagon's planners: Why shouldn't Israel bomb Iran's nuclear sites?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

Chancellor James Moeser of UNC-Chapel Hill refused to name last week's attempted mass murder of Carolina students a terrorist act, even though the suspect admitted that perceived affronts to Islam were the motivation for his attack.

Moeser said of the vehicular assault that intended to kill students in his charge:

"The fact is, this is not the university's call," Moeser said. "The U.S. attorney will determine whether or not this is an act of terrorism."

Perhaps the chancellor is waiting for the U.S. Attorney to read this definition of terrorism to him from Dictionary.com:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Mohammed Taheri-azar's "Jeep Jihad" was an unlawful use of force by a person against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing a society he thought was hostile to Islam. He stated in his 911 call, "It was really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Is this nakedly an ideological reason? This was a textbook case of the very definition of terrorism, and yet Chancellor Moeser lacks the fortitude to address this terrorist attack for what it was.

Instead, he argues:

"I agree, this could feel like terrorism, especially if you're standing in front of a Jeep that's heading toward you trying to kill you," Moeser said. "As we have investigated this, we've come more and more to the conclusion that this was one individual acting alone in a criminal act."

Perhaps Moeser would like to pretend that crazed individuals and isolated groups are not capable of terrorism. I'd have him remember Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph or Theodore Kaczynski. Dare he not call them terrorists?

Or does Moeser object more to the method of the madness? Will only pipe-bombs full of ball bearings or a spray of machine gun bullets meet his lofty threshold of acceptably terrorist behavior?

Perhaps he is not psychologically equipped to handle the fact that his university was the target of a terrorist act, and so he would like to ignore it and return to business as usual. But ignoring the problem is not the kind of leadership we expect from our flagship university, or it's chief adminstrator.

Waiting for the permission to state the obvious isn't leadership at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

David Ignatius hits the nail on the head in his Washington Post editorial:

Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.

President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

Congress failed America last night. Try to remember that in November.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:08 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Funny, how the media is drawn to the fiction, but can't bother itself with the facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

For the second day in a row, ABC News targets Iran with another bombshell allegation (my bold):

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday rejected suggestions Iraq is engulfed in a civil war but predicted there would be additional "bursts" of sectarian violence in the weeks ahead.

Rumsfeld also claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements had infiltrated Iraq to cause trouble.

"They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

He would not be more specific except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

We know from yesterday that Iran is supplying Iraqi terrorists with sophisticated SCMs (shaped charge munitions) that can defeat the armor of even our heaviest tanks. It is this kind of charge that was responsible for the deaths of 14 Marines in their Iraqi interpreter last August near Haditha.

Now we have the Secretary of Defense stating that members of the elite al Quds division—the same unit that deployed elements to Afghanistan to assist the Taliban and roughly analogous to the Green Berets in usage if not quality—are actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq.

It is quite probable that this has not been a proxy war for some time, but instead a low-level special operations war. One has to wonder how and when the Iranian "error in judgement" will be corrected.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:17 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Iran may just been caught red-handed shipping high-tech IEDs into Iraq:

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Berry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war.

If these munitions can be tied to the Iranian government—and the article seems to strongly suggest just that—then we have the clear legal and moral justification to disrupt Iran's intentions to wound or kill American soldiers.

We have been trying to settle our differences with Iran with non-military means, but by their actions, their intent is clear. The mullahs of Iran would wage war upon America, and in doing so, have determined freedom for their enslaved pro-western people sooner, rather than later.

Update: Cox & Forkum weigh in:

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:46 PM | Comments (74) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This has probably been going on all along, I'm glad we finally caught them in the act. Now we just have to ask, "What Would Reagan Do?" The answer is clear. Retaliatory bomings against military targets within Iran. They have violated their rights as a neutral with this and it's time to bring it home to the Ayatollah.

Posted by: Thrill at March 06, 2006 07:47 PM (+E47Q)

2 I've been in no hurry to attack Iran. My thought was if we do, they will make Iraq even more of a problem for us. Now it looks like that reasoning is gone. They already are. If that is the case, if they are sending substantial aid to the insurgents, it's time to bomb the crap out of them. Maybe we can send some former embassy hostages over to flip the switches to fire the Tomahawks.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 06, 2006 08:21 PM (4joLu)

3 Message to President Bush, re: Iran It is Tomahawk time.

Posted by: Marvin at March 06, 2006 08:53 PM (8cEPU)

4 It's an act of war. Condi should immediately warn them continuing this one second longer will buy them some serious shock and awe. We owe it to the troops.

Posted by: TallDave at March 06, 2006 09:52 PM (H8Wgl)

5 A bunch of AC130's just arrived...thay can put a world of hurt on scum trying to infiltrate the border.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2006 01:20 AM (TbnUR)

6 Time to take the gloves off. Iran has been helping the insurgents all along. They just got caught with their collective pants down. Now we need to stick it to them. Syria is doing the same thing. We have the people in place to get the job done. They were warned at the outset of hostilaties to stay out of it. They chose not to so, they need to pay the price. First Cut off there fuel supplies. They have alot of oil but can't refine it. Get word to the moderate pro western folks tell them to get the hell out of the way. Send in the Tomahawks and B2's. AIRPOWER BABY!!!!!!!! P.S. Expect no help from the U.N.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 07, 2006 07:55 AM (JYeBJ)

7 And why should we take richard clarkes word on anything, he also said Iraq had wmd's. Also the only proof they offer is that the bombs have similar tool marks...they are not stamped Made in Iran!!!! So it looks like once again the war mongering right wants to start bombing brown people for no honest reason....keep in mind, the day we do that is the day before gas goes to $8.00 a gallon.

Posted by: madmatt at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (J8hqn)

8 Did you guys actually read the original report? They were caught doing this last October by the Brits, and the Brits were quite embarrassed because the fuses on the weaspons were British ones the IRA had stolen and sold. In other words, this is old news. Sorry to harsh your frenzy.

Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (BkYcc)

9 PS Isn't it ironic you quote Richard Clarke NOW, when you heaped nothing but abuse on him before when he criticized the President's do thing actions against terror prior to 9/11? I guess that was then, and now he's your boy again!

Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:24 AM (BkYcc)

10 "I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war." Hoisting youself on your own petard, are you?

Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 07, 2006 09:33 AM (a0KXj)

11 hey zen_less, nobody here cares about Richard Clarke. This is not old news, it is a new find. It has been suspected, but the article makes clear that the new find demonstrates mass production of the devices so it unequivically demonstrates Iranian government complicity. As I said, I have not supported attacking Iran before. It is not a reflexive desire to bomb brown skins, but based on new evidence that the Iranians are already at war with us, moron.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:40 AM (4joLu)

12 The preceding "reality-based" comments are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink. Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. ItÂ’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale. Come on, little liberals. Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 07, 2006 09:45 AM (g5Nba)

13 Libs, okay, you define for us exactly what point at which you think it is acceptable for a nation to defend its people. Go ahead, give us a "go to war" scenario you would support. And tell us what you would say to the mothers of all the soldiers who have been killed by Iran to explian how their deaths are not worth a war. Go ahead blameocrats, we are waiting...

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:49 AM (4joLu)

14 ...and Syria is hiding the WMDs. We KNOW they are, because Georges Sada told us they are. So let's start a massive bombing campaign against Iraq and Syria today!
Then the insurgency in Iraq will REALLY be in "it's last throes!"
Do you kool aid drinkers really think we have the means to wage a 3 front war in the middle east right now? Confederate Yank - Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor? There must be a recruiting office nearby. Go sign up, buddy. If you're too old, convince your kids to go. It's your patriotic duty, tough guy.

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 10:18 AM (CIj8S)

15 From the article: "U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October." Actually, as the article makes clear, this is NOT a new story. It seems they have been aware since October that Iran was producing these weapons and smuggling them into Iraq. We've apparently known about this for some time, so why haven't we invaded Iran yet? What's the hold up? Frankly I'm getting bored with this whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing. We don't use the cool weapons any more... I keep hearing about lame shit like new schools and power infrastructure. Let's embed some reporters, fire up the cruise missles and get to work. I especially like those missle-camera shots so I can see the bomb as it slams into some filthy village full of brown people. Can we get a camera on an A-10? They're great for shredding anyone stupid enough to be standing around.

Posted by: Bob at March 07, 2006 10:33 AM (673ys)

16 "I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war." So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.

Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 10:34 AM (A5ppj)

17 So then the Soviet Union would have been justified in invading or bombing the United States in the 1980's for supplying arms and training to the Muhjadeen in Afganistan?

Posted by: J at March 07, 2006 10:35 AM (XK3OX)

18 It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding). Maybe some things haven't gone perfectly in Iraq (though they're going a lot better than the MSM claims, for sure), but we can apply whatever lessons we learned there to the invasion of Iran. Freedom is on the march.

Posted by: Leonidas at March 07, 2006 10:37 AM (Xu9JJ)

19 IÂ’m shocked that our long stated enemy is trying to undermine us in Iraqi. Imagine the nerve, donÂ’t they realize that our mismanaged invasions of Afghanistan and Iraqi are costing us so much in lives, money and security not to mention international credibility and respect that their meddling is complicating our efforts to invade them? What about Syria and North Korea? Their on the plate too, how are we going to invade them if our hands are so tied in Nation Building in Iraqi? I gotta give the administration and the Republicans a lot of credit; thank God we have the Party that protects America running the show. I feel much safer now knowing that the whole world roots against us, and doesnÂ’t believe a word we say, that our military recruiting is down even while we lower the standards to get in, that there is whole sale turnover of senior staff in our intelligence agencies that we depend on the French Foreign Intelligence for the bulk of our own intelligence, that the defense department is nothing short of dysfunctional, that we canÂ’t even get busses to evacuate a major American city when we need to. I love the Patriot Act, I love the war powers act that gives our President essentially monarchical powers for a war he say will last for decades, I love the fact whenever someone questions the White House the documents they need canÂ’t be seen because they are considered National Security secrets, I love that the President says one thing, but the reality is something else. Thank God Kerry wasnÂ’t elected; I would have nothing to loveÂ…

Posted by: Joe at March 07, 2006 10:52 AM (jfbXj)

20 "It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding)"
Why don't you start up a militia and go on in. I'm sure they'll welcome you with roses and serenade you with American songs as you march by.
Then the new "democratically elected" government will shake your hand and pat you on the back as you leave the newly constructed American embassy in the Green Zone with a free trade agreement in your cheeto stained hands, just 5 months later.
Let us know how it goes.

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 11:13 AM (c+6Oi)

21 CY: American soldiers do not "deserve" to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. But sadly, they should expect to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. And it is not their fault (the US soldiers that is). Flashback to the 1980s when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. Who supplied the Mujahadeen (spelling?) with training and Stinger anti-aircraft missles to shoot down the Hind helicopters that were plagueing them so. We did. And we all felt so righteous doing it. Technically speaking, we were assisting the Afghan rebels, the predecessors of Al Qaida, in killing Russian soldiers. Some would call that a causus belli. They would be right. Russia could have declared war on the United States, but that would have been foolish for obvious reasons. And they probably could have proved it because they had folks like Aldrich Ames feeding them intel. Which goes to show, just because you CAN declare war on another country, legally that is, does not mean it is wise to do so. History may one day demonstrate that if we had to wage war on either Iran or Iraq, we should have chosen the former and not the latter, and certainly not both. Iran took our embassy hostage, waged war against out onetime ally at the time Iraq, is governed by a fundamentalist regime that despises us, has a grudge against us for shooting down one of its airliners, and now is more allied than ever with the new Iraqi government. Could we bomb some of their military targets? Sure. With spectacular accuracy and minimal loss of civilian life no doubt. Except for that pesky nuclear fallout. And great video for Faux News. Then what. If Iran doesn't stop sending alleged Iranian made land mines? Do we invade? Would we win? For a while. And then what. We will be tryinig to stabilize Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, simultaneously. I doubt our Old World Chocolate Making European allies will be much help. We would be surrounded by Turkey, a foe of the Kurds in the Northwest. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran in the North. (Oh, and Russia was accused by Rumsfeld early in the Iraq invasion of supplying night vision goggles to the insurgents. That made me laugh. Payback's a bitch. Don't get me wrong. I supported supplying Stingers to Afghan rebels, I am just old enough to understand that there may be some folks in Russia that hold a grudge) A bunch of former former Soviet republics in the Northwest that are fighting insurgents themselves. An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan (with Nukes) in the East and Southeast. India, a nominal ally that thinks we are completely off our rocker (also with Nukes) in the South (and fighting with Pakistan over a decades old border dispute). Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 attackers and primary bank of madrassas teaching their children that we are infidels in the Southwest. Jordan, a nominal ally (sort of like Switzerland) in the East with no real ability to help us except for that hottie of a wife. And finally, Syria, alleged to have WMD smuggled in from Iraq, also in the East. Not that it is not bad already, but if you want a meat grinder for US soldiers, that is what you will get. If you think Gen. Shinseki's estimate that we needed 300,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq was high, we will need a cool million to stabilize Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, at least. Put them all together and you have Oceana. Note: I keep saying "alleged Iranian made land mines." Why? Because we were told with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld said we had pictures of them. Buzzz. Not so much. There are cross allegations the bombs were made or partly made in Ireland. Payback for the British. They could be Russian, Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Lebanese, PA, Saudi, Eqyptian, or just plain Iraqi. And IED's? Please. They are land mines. You stick them in the ground and they go boom. That is a land mine.

Posted by: Coltergeist at March 07, 2006 11:15 AM (/HJxW)

22 ABX, Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then... Check out the video of Rummy and Hussein on the Internet. I tried to post the link but CY did not allow me to do so. Just google it, it comes up easily.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:19 AM (fY4fP)

23 From the time when Saddam was our best buddy: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:28 AM (fY4fP)

24 Confederate Yankee has a bad case of the kool-aid. Let's look at his comments in a little detail. A few of the hallmarks of the cultist: they use 'code words' and phrases to short cut rational analysis to dismiss 'the enemy', assuming they're right and unable to really ask the hard questions. For example, the little cult that thought they'd get a ride on the comet after drinking poison, I'm betting they had names to call the "reality-based" people - they probably quoted that, too - who tried to get them to ask the rational things about their assumption. "The preceding "reality-based" comments" And there we go - quoting "reality-based" as if that were an argument proving it wrong. But I'll cut him some slack if he proved the term was unwarranted; he doesn't, his argument is just to repeat the claim. "are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink." More name-calling, and of the richly ironic kind. "Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. ItÂ’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale." The irony meter is off the scale. The left is the rational group generally, and the right the emotional gorup generally. Sure, there are exceptions - but you tend to see the left arguing the 'facts' of things like deficit reduction and other policies, while the right is all about the 'emotions', the mandatory flags on the lapel (not to mention the flag burning amendment to the constitution), yellow ribbons (made in China) on the cars, and so on, which makes them so richly manipulatable - and the manipulators are mostly on the right currently. See the post following CY from the 'liberal' and ask who has more rational analysis. "Come on, little liberals." As predicted, the typical right-wing name-calling substituting contempt for reason. And you have the gall to accuse the left of not aguing rationally. "Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it." Ah, finally, the speck of attempt, at the end of the post, at some argument. Too bad that it, predictably, is utterly flawed in its poor logic. Let's consider an analogy. Let's say a liberal who opposes the Iraq war framed the same question: they asked you to explain why, instead of the soldiers being safe at home, they deserved to be killed in Iraq. And they repeated for emphasis, as you do - repitition in lieu of logic - tell them why they DESERVE that. Oh no, you would protest, they don't deserve to be killed, that's not a fair way to discuss the issue; you would go on and on about the rest of the story the question doesn't include about the benefits of the war and why it was an unfortunate but justified price for a larger good. But do you argue the same way you demand? No, you put out the garbage about asking why your opponents think the soldiers should be killed. And in a post where you attack the LEFT for not being logical in their posts. Look, the right has major issues with their lack of rationality. The left isn't out to hurt them, the left is out to help them. For democracy to succeeed, the people cannot afford to be manipulated by well-funded campaigns for wrong, selfish, immoral policies (I'm speaking generally - this is a formula for how politics works today, selfish interests invest large sums which dominate our political process, in exchange for concessions out of the public good, whether in money, or the right to pollute, or whatever other public trust is violated; in exchane, their money pays for the propaganda to paint the crooks as flag-waving great Americans and gets them re-elected). Get a clue, CY. For your own sake and the country's. Your post had no 'facts' while you demand facts. Let the grownups handle policy if you can't be bothered to grow up. There are legitimate arguments on both sides much of the time to consider, but your infantile approach of trying to use big arguments about the left not arguing logically are only harmful to the public debate and you embarrass yourself.

Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:13 PM (2LCIG)

25 The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence. Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught."

Posted by: O'Reilly at March 07, 2006 12:14 PM (l7fko)

26 Now, for the issue - not to mix my castigation of CY with the issue in Iran: In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected president. The US had the CIA overthrow the president - and democracy - and install the Shah who rule in a dictatorship for 25 years. Was that not an act of war far, far beyond what is alleged here? I should just stop the post here and let the right chew on this fact and try to answer is, rather than go on to other examples from our assistance to Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran with hundreds of thousands killed, to our recent sending of special forces inside their borders to collect targetting information, another act of war, not to mention the aggressive plans for going after Iran in the Plan for a New American Century, whose architects are generally in power now - and in fact, that's what I'm going to do. Imagine a country overthrowing our democracy, and putting a dictator friendly to them in place for 25 years, before we are able to retake our country, and then that country saying they have the right to invade our country because we did an act of war, while they take zero responsibility. I look forward to the well-reasonsed responses from the right.

Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:20 PM (2LCIG)

27 O'Reilly, I'm going to disagree: "The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence. Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught." " The red-handed refers to the nature of the evidence. red-handed is a reference to any time the evidence is very direct, rather than indirect. Catching Iraqi forces with the weapons handing them to Iraqi militants would be 'red-handed', while less direct evidence - say, confessions, or financial documents showing activities, would not be. So, the phrase red-handed is useful in clarifying what the type of alleged evidence is. The 'may have been' is a separate issue, showing that the truth of the evidence is in question. Saying that the reports of the evidence are still being verified is a different issue than saying whether the evidence is very direct or not so much. So, 'may have been caught red-handed' would mean that there are reports that they were caught in a very directly incriminating act, and that the reports are yet to be strongly confirmed.

Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:28 PM (2LCIG)

28 What would Reagan do? Cut and run (Lebanon 1983) or negotiate and cut deals with the terrorists (1980-198 . Any other questions?

Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 12:58 PM (ByaZN)

29 Reagan did not "cut and run" from Lebanon. He was forced to withdraw troops thanks to the Treason Party-uh, I mean the Democrats-majorityj in the Senate. They were preparing a joint resolution to insist on immediate withdrawal of the troops after the suicide bombing of the Marines' barracks. They only backed off because they understood that it would make them look bad. Reagan pulled the troops out and also bombed into the Syrian occupied areas whenever they fired at our soldiers and Marines. Naturally, the Democrats also objected to that. When terrorists bombed a West Berlin nightclub and killed some of our troops partying there, Reagan traced the attacks back to the Libyans and bombed that country. We even targeted Khaddafi's home. Didn't hear much out of him for awhile after that. In this case, Iran could be responsible for hundreds of American casualties and they will inflict more if action isn't taken. I'm always astounded by those on the left who try to criticize Reagan or W.'s foreign policies. A serious look at the record shows that the Democrats are and always have been weak on national security and sometimes actively worked against it.

Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:18 PM (+E47Q)

30 So Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon because the Dems were too scared to force the action because they might look bad? I stand corrected. Reagan was being resolute when he cut and ran from Lebanon.

Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:24 PM (ByaZN)

31 Almost forgot to answer your second accusation. Reagan never negotiated with terrorists. It was the stated policy of his Administration not to, though the defendants in Iran-Contra did so without his knowledge. They were fired and indicted. Maybe now we can talk about Carter allowing our embassy in Iran to be seized without any consequence whatsoever or Bill Clinton refusing to accept offers to arrest or kill bin Laden even after he was implicated in the first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers, the Cole, and the Embassy Bombings?

Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:26 PM (+E47Q)

32 How do you think those hostages in Iran got released? Or are you saying Reagan himself (personally) didn't negotiate with terrorists? Like Ike didn't really pour the concrete when he built the National Highway system. And I know what his stated policy was. Big deal. GW's stated policy is to protect all americans, but that doesn't mean the Katrina aftermath didn't happen.

Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:32 PM (ByaZN)

33 Why don't we see this on the front page of every mewspaper? I suppose our troops are forgotten by the media, unless they've already died. It's a crime to see them killed, a tragedy to let it continue unanswered.

Posted by: Marshall Neal at March 07, 2006 01:56 PM (Qa0tQ)

34 John said "Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?" John, let me clear up a few things for you. We are talking about bombing IRAN not Syria. We are talking about BOMBING Iran, not invading. Are you capable of understanding the distinction. We don't need to send in divisions in Iran. We can punish them from the air and we have plent of assets to do it. Hell, we can launch the bombers from Nebraska numb nuts. Look at factcheck.org. They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." Get a clue bobblehead.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:16 PM (CdK5b)

35 So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli. Posted by abx at March 7, 2006 10:34 AM where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:24 PM (CdK5b)

36 loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:27 PM (CdK5b)

37 Devils advocate said "ABX, Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then..." The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:31 PM (CdK5b)

38 "The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron"
And I guess that explains why Reagan was secretly selling weapons to Iran and channeling the money to the Contras. What about that, bobblehead?

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:46 PM (c+6Oi)

39 The reason we supported Hussein was he was doing what was in the US's best interest. The reason we don't support Hussein now is because he gassed his own people. NOT. It's because he stopped doing everything we wanted him to do. BTW, that's the same reason we supported the Shah. The whole "democratically elected leader thing" is a huge lie. It's not how you got to be the leader, it's what you do (for us) once you're there. BTW< I don't hate America, but I'm not blind to our faults either.

Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 02:50 PM (ByaZN)

40 "They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed. How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is? Facts is facts, bobblehead.

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:54 PM (c+6Oi)

41 "loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran." If you are addressing LEONIDAS, he was being sarcastic. I didn't see that at first either, so I guess I'm a "bobblehead" too.

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:56 PM (c+6Oi)

42 Craig mentioned the overthrow of the Iranian president but fails to mention this: Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh "Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended. Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions. To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy. Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the head of state, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do. Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953. One of the leaders of the coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi, was proclaimed Prime Minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week." Oh, so the elected President of Iran got 99.9% of the vote. Sounds just like Saddam's election. Yup, we sure screwed over the Iranians there. (nevermind there own army and king forced him to resign, it was all about the US screwing the poor dictator who disolved the parliment)...way to go Craig....clap....clap....clap

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:59 PM (CdK5b)

43 Look, let's stop all the crazy talk about bombing and invasion. We need to take a page from the "Reagan-North Playbook." Our alternative solution?
1. Begin trafficking arms to the Iranians as a bribe to stop sending IEDs into Iraq. 2. With the money we'll get, we put Pat Robertson's plan into action and fund a right wing group in Venezuela to oust Hugo Chavez - that is, between dodging the storms that God is hurling our way for tolerating gay marraige and abortion.
Simple and effective, with only the minor illegality that the Bush administration has proven rather adept at nullifying.

Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 03:30 PM (c+6Oi)

44 Ray Robinson, you fail to attribute the source of your post - Wikipedia - and to quote relevant facts. As one of the reference links on the page you quote from explains the history of the 'king': It shows that in decades before 1953, the British had set up a company to control Iran's oil, over which Iran had no say, not even to see the books, and a company which sent more money to Britain than to the government of Iran. It was the old system of colonialism/theft. "To guarantee themselves such control over Iran the British had installed their own man in power in a coup in 1921. This man’s name was originally Reza Khan, but he later had himself crowned monarch and became Reza Shah... He was the father of Mohammed Reza Shah, the man whom the CIA later installed in power in 1953 when the democratic and progressive government of Mohammed Mossadeq, an Iranian patriot, tried to stop the plunder of Iran... The man whom the 1953 CIA coup installed in power after deposing the popular and democratic Mohammed Mossadeq was the shah (king) Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. This man was a brutal thug. To keep himself in power, he made use of “SAVAK, the secret police force” which the CIA had created for him, and which was “the largest force of its kind outside the Communist bloc.” This iron-fisted dictator resorted to “torture...of political prisoners... and military courts,” the better to quash all opposition and ensure a steady flow of Iranian wealth to the United States." (The post would not allow the URL to be posted, it's the first external link on the Wiki page). Now let's look at your selective quoting of the article; the text immediately preceding yours: "The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil. Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high cold war fears. Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country... The [CIA] plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community." That's the plot it refers to: Mossadegh 'cracking down' in part fabrication by the CIA and in part response to the real plot to overthrow him from elected office, to put back in power puppets who would export Iran's assets to Britain and the US. As the article notes, the coutnry had a feudel land system terrible for the people, and Mossadegh was taking steps to improve that, and to keep the coutnry's assets from being controlled and exported to Britain and the US. And for good measure, as we now condemn the people who bomb for political causes there: The NY Times report on Iran included, as part of the overthrow of the elected government: "Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government." Anyway, clap clap clap yourself for your support of selfish evil. And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him. The US has no business undermining democracy.

Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 04:03 PM (2LCIG)

45 "where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead." "bobblehead". That's funny. There's no disagreement here with any of the facts I presented. Not only have the US, USSR and China long and rich histories of arming the enemies of their enemies, but it goes back to the days of Persian interference in the Peloponnesian Wars and probably further. It's just another political tool, and the US should suck it up, and look for a more subtle form of payback. Unless you're sure you can punch that tarbaby without getting stuck, or making a sticky mess all over the Middle East. -Bobblehead

Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 04:32 PM (A5ppj)

46 Wow, the Lefties in here are exactly like their elected leaders in Congress. I've read plenty of bitching about Reagan and W and how the US is so evil because it does things that all nations have done historically to defend their own interests but not a single alternative to the very sensible proposal made by most of us to begin firing cruise missiles at Iranian military targets. What would you suggest the US do? What would you have your beloved Hillary do if she were President? Maybe she would help the Iranians finish their nuclear program, just like her husband did for the North Koreans just to show them that we mean well so they will like us? Or start allowing them to acquire our latest military technology and supercomputers as her husband's Administration did. One thing is for sure, if I were an Iranian mullah, I'd start donating to the Hillary '08 campaign NOW! Let's hear it from the Left: If it is demonstrated that the Iranians have been producing explosive devices of such power that none of our armor can resist it and smuggling those devices into Iraq to cause American casualties, how would you want John Kerry to handle it if he had won (God help us)?

Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:07 PM (+E47Q)

47 Clarification: Bill Clinton allowed the CHINESE to acquire our latest military technology in exchange for campaign contributions.

Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:10 PM (+E47Q)

48 john, would you mind quoting your sources on armor? I've read lots of reports, but I've never seen anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about the study that showed that of the service people who died, there might have been armor problems. Of course that study wasn't quite up to proving the facts about body armor one way or another because it failed to find out how many people had been saved by the same body armor. At any rate, rather than just spew number, post your sources. Anybody can make stuff up....

Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 05:28 PM (ybfXM)

49 craig said "And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him." your key points then: Mohammed Mossadeq was democraticly elected. Does it sound reasonable that 99.9% of the Iranians voted for him? Are you really going to hang your hat on that argument, that he was democratically elected? You are so far and that is why you are a bobblehead. The CIA overthrew him. The CIA certainly played a hand, but it was the Iranian military that bombed his headquarters until he surrendered. Was that CIA agents in those tanks? You going to hang your hat on that one? We replaced him with a puppet. The Shaw, who replaced him, was already senior to the President according to Iranian law. Therefor he had the legal authority to demand Mossadeq resign. We didn't replace the President, Iranian law did. Mossadeq dissolved the Iranian Parliment which is about as far away as you can get from democracy. Yet you still want to say we overthew a democraticly elected prsident and replace him with a puppet. You are a bobblehead.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:38 PM (CdK5b)

50 That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed. How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is? Facts is facts, bobblehead. First off, your comment shows you have no understanding of the use of body armor in a tactical situation. Let me help you. If an IED can penetrate the vehicle armor, there is near zero chance body armor will protect you. When a vehicle is ambushed, in a react to contact scenario, you don't have time to fiddle with armor, you get out of the vehicle and seek cover and try to locate a target. When you are in 100 degree weather inside an armored vehicle, it is hell with the body armor they wear now. That 80% you quote is from a medical study, not a trade off study. It simply showed that it is possible to reduce casualties with more body armor, not how that will affect the soldier in any other way. The soldiers themselves are saying no more armor, are you going to argue with them? You need me to post a link? I can find it...bobblehead BTW, the reason I like the confederate yankee is because most of the regulars are vets like me, so you can take your lectures on anything about the military and shove them in your pie hole

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:48 PM (CdK5b)

51 Ray Robinson: You're misrepresenting the situation. When I mention that Mossadeq was an elected leader, you fail to note the fact that he was, and you instead mention the activities he did *after* the US and Britain began the campaign to overthrow him. His actions were *in response* to that campaign. Again and again this happens; when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in Russia, soon after you had foreign 'interests' sending troops to attack them, including the United States. The new government had to take steps to defend itself; gee whiz, now you can point at the terrible police state. Castro overthrows Batista, the US is in there doing terrorism and trying to assassinate him. A left president, Allende, is elected in Chile, Nixon orders him overthrown (democracy gone). The Sandinistas put democracy into Nicaragua to replace the brutal Somozas; the US hires a terrorist army to blackmail the people to vote them out of power. Chavez wins in Venezuela and makes changes to relieve some of the overwhelming contentration of wealth (largely in the hands of a few hundred families), and the US takes all kinds of steps to try to remove him from power, including supporting a coup. Many of these people have their own flaws, but again, it's not up to the United States to undermine democracy, and to cause problems to be worse. If you had a foreign power strong enough to overthrow our president doing so, do you think for a moment that our president would not move towards a 'police state' to crack down on the threat to his power from abroad? As for the absurd argument that the US is simply doing things that have been done by others, as if that's any defense, I'll point out that that logic would support, say, ending demoracy in the US. After all, all through mankind nations have not had democracy, so there's nothing wrong with it? Let's bring back slavery - it's been used by nations forever, so that makes it ok. Just because something has been done does not mean it's ok to do the wrong again. Those of us who believe in a truly great America have a problem with the bastards who would let our country be as evil as it likes as long as they can say "at least Hitler was worse". We're for the real principles of the United States, and expanding its good to the world as possible. The world leadership build over decades of democratic rule from FDR to Kennedy are being squandered by the right (and yes, I excluded LBJ from the 'good' side for his mistake in Viet Nam). The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil. The right is too often too ignorant to know any more than 'make weapons, use weapons'. The right has the US in huge decline, with only our military might left - and that greatly weakened because of the world losing its desire to ally with the US, and increasing the threats to the US.

Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 07:10 PM (VmbVS)

52 craig, You are good with history. That does not make you an expert on current events. Sorry - just another "conspiracy theorist" talking head. The "Great Decline". Objectives of any government change over time. Strategy is not static - it is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the situation. This is a changing world so strategies - i.e. who we support and who we don't - are going to be modified. Plain and simple fact.

Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:03 PM (ybfXM)

53 BTW Craig, You brought up Hitler - you lose - Godwin's Law. If you are too young to know that law - look it up.

Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:05 PM (ybfXM)

54 So does that mean we should be at war with ourseleves due to the fact that american soldiers are dying through the use of US made weapons in both I and A? I'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do. He came dancing across the water, George Bush George Bush. What a killer.

Posted by: lazerlou at March 07, 2006 08:44 PM (pBKzg)

55 lazer, Do you include Hitler, Khmer Rouge, and other nut cases in that category? Pol Pot did not buy weapons from us. And how many did Hitler kill? We supplied those weapons? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?

Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 10:18 PM (ybfXM)

56 'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do. Well, you sure have a shitty memory then. Here's our massive number of weapons systems sold to Iraq (exclude the ones delivered in 2004): (See the link because this table doesn't cut and paste well) USA (31) Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but taken over by Air Force 4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005 7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE 30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force; Hughes-300C version 30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30) 26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force Yep, those insurgents sure are working us over with all those light helicopters. Oh, wait... And don't you find it strange that every picture and every video shows insurgents carrying AK-47s, RPGs, PKMs, and RPK-74s (which are all Russian made) and no M-16s, M-4s, SRAWs, or SAWs?

Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:22 PM (pLJN7)

57 Here more: Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 Country $MM USD 1990 % Total USSR 25145 57.26 France 5595 12.74 China 5192 11.82 Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 Poland 1681 3.83 Brazil 724 1.65 Egypt 568 1.29 Romania 524 1.19 Denmark 226 0.51 Libya 200 0.46 USA 200 0.46 South Africa 192 0.44 Austria 190 0.43 Switzerland 151 0.34 Yugoslavia 107 0.24 Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 Italy 84 0.19 UK 79 0.18 Hungary 30 0.07 Spain 29 0.07 East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 Canada 7 0.02 Jordan 2 0.005 Total 43915 100.0 Yes, that's 0.46%

Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:35 PM (pLJN7)

58 Argh! It got all jumbled. See the updated table here.

Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:57 PM (xEXsr)

59 Brown people? "Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." "

Posted by: Leonard at March 07, 2006 11:48 PM (lPJXD)

60 If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan? Not that I'm crazy about the mullahs, but we have enough of a war on our hands at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln said during difficulties with Britain during the Civil War, one war at a time. And if the mullahs are wearing out their welcome with Iran's under-30 crowd, the WORST thing in the world we could do is take action against Iran and turn their young folks into sudden patriots. As Napoleon said, don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

Posted by: Middle Aged Artillery Veteran at March 08, 2006 12:32 PM (z2X7f)

61 Psychopaths? So what. Until NPR and the socialist Democrats say it's wise to as much as breathe a syllable of rhetoric, we should just placate. After all, terrorist states just need to be understood. The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil. Assuming you could even categorize evil in this context, and assuming you could similarly categorize morals and a strong America, if the Left wasn't all about weakening America, you wouldn't have to protest as you are. That Emperor has no clothes.

Posted by: 6Gun at March 08, 2006 05:24 PM (QEBMZ)

62 This has been going on all along. You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help... well republicans wouldnt do that but most of America understands that concept.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:30 PM (FohTw)

63 You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help So your definition of "helping" the Iraqis is blowing up mosques and trying to foment a civil war between them?

Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:23 PM (xEXsr)

64 Thrill: here is one reason to avoid bombing Iran: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633 They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff. Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?

Posted by: masaccio at March 08, 2006 06:41 PM (unNNA)

65 They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff. Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Yeah, this sounds familiar... Where have I heard this? Oh yeah, remember Saddam's uber-elite Republican Guard? And how Baghdad was going to be the next Stalingrad? Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control? Well, considering that only about 10% of our forces are in Iraq right now, that shouldn't be a problem. And there would be no occupation this time. Just a repeat of the thunder run, until the Mullahs crumble just like Saddam did.

Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:53 PM (xEXsr)

66 There are plenty of arguments for why we should take action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The thing is, that wasn't the point of CY's post. He essentially said that if we are fighting an enemy, any country supplying that enemy with arms is de facto declaring war on us. This is unbelieveable. With the way international arms are traded, we could find ourselves at war with multiple countries at any given time. Are you seriously suggesting that once we start fighting someone, any country selling them arms has to immediately stop, or we declare war on them? Not pressure them to stop, but declare war? I'm sure you think we rule the world, but that's biting off a little more than we want to try and chew. And trying to equate opposition to your point with thinking US soldiers deserve to die is childish demagoguery. Obviously, Bush sent them there, so he must think they deserve to die, as well. What foolishness.

Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:01 PM (80Sf7)

67 And btw Specter You might want to look up Godwin's Law before you get all smug. Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The idea that whoever brings up Nazis automatically loses the argument is not Godwin's Law, despite the many know-it-alls like you who continue to spread that misinformation.

Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:15 PM (80Sf7)

68 one distinction missed here, The Iranians are not supplying "arms". They are supplying IEDs specifically built to kill US armor. Otherwise they would just be giving them AT weapons and RPGs. That is like slapping a "made in Iran to kill americans in Iraq" sticker on the devices. If you folks don't take that personal, there is something deeply wrong with you.

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 08, 2006 11:43 PM (4joLu)

69 "If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan?" Yes. They chose not to (in a direct manner.) Is Iran mass producing weapons to kill American soldiers? Are they sending in special forces? In either case, we should respond vigorously and with the most effect to harm this enemy regime with as little damage to those people that are innocent as we can. Reduce the enemy and it's war making capacity to dust wherever it is found.

Posted by: ken anthony at March 09, 2006 04:56 AM (TvVjo)

70 Chris, How long have you been on the internet? I've been playing with computers for over 35 years and I was one of the first people who debated on usenet when Godwin's Law was formed. Believe it or not it was used to end arguments there - the person who brought up Hitler actually lost the argument. Time honored tradition as opposed to the watered down Wiki explanation of it. I bet you call the WWW the Internet. LOL.

Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 08:59 AM (ybfXM)

71 Folks, I've just about had it with the name-calling. Debate over the substance of someone's comments, but enough profanity. Chris, your comment was tossed for that reason.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 09, 2006 09:39 AM (g5Nba)

72 First off, I want to apoloogize to CY for dropping his URL onto my post to hide my e-mail address. I had to make this address after my old inbox got mail bombed to hell by people who didn't want to debate me. I really don't like it when people can't stick to the facts and have to resort to childish antics to "win" an argument. It sucked having to wade through a thousand spam e-mails to get the ones I wanted to read and I am not going to do that again. Now, about the body armor debate. How many people here have ever worn body armor? *Raises hand and looks around* With full battle rattle and body armor, you are humping a good load and there is a tradeoff between mobility and armor. When I was wearing my armor, I was a believer in the "move fast enough to get out of the way when the bad guys shoot at you" theory of combat. I am also a stone's throw away from the main gate of a major military base and the guys I know who have been over there have the same belief. Our vehicles can take the RPGs, land mines and IEDs (to a degree). Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot.

Posted by: Jon The Mechanic at March 10, 2006 02:38 PM (8hHaL)

73 Hear Hear

Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 03:50 PM (ybfXM)

74 "Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot." This is the voice of a war criminal. Why do I say that? Because it's a call for killing by someone using self-serving logic that is not applied equally to both sides. The United States is the #1 arms merchant in the world; some more defensible and other less so. Does everyone who is targetted by munitions supplied by the United States, from the Palastenians killed by Israelis using American weaponry, to the Saudi people held down by the Saudi regime using American weaponry (most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and had as much or more reason to 'turn the US into a parking lot' as Jon has to use violence against Iran using his own logic), to El Salvadorans or Chileans targetted by US-supported regimes using American weaponry? If he'll say that they have every moral right to turn us into a parking lot for our supplying weapons to their attackers, then he can use that logic to justify his approval for attacking Iran. But he won't. And that's why he's a war criminal, initating aggressive war, and then using the response to justify the violence, as if he raped a woman and then justified the father's murder because of the father striking back at him. It's an illustration of the logic of arrogance and too much power. Any resistance to the crimes of the powerful 'deserves' a harsh response. You can see this anywhere in history - including the old south when blacks 'acting up' justified violence against them, including lynching, by a pepope drunk with their own power and unable to see the wrongs they were doing. Those racists were not really any different than people today - the circumstances were different. And we need to see the morality - and immorality - of this situation, lest we be a nation of evil. And no, identifying the evil in other nations - and Iran has more than its share - is no excuse.

Posted by: Craig at March 12, 2006 10:45 PM (VmbVS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The next time you hear John Murtha speaking of withdrawal, the next time your hear Al Gore accusing anyone of playing on our fears, the next time you listen to Cindy Sheehan saying this country is not worth fighting for, remember this:

So far, 2,298 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives in 1,079 days to liberate 25 million Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein's Baathists murdered 10,725 men women and children in just one building in Suleimaniya.

Is this war on terror worth it?

Only if you have a conscience.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.