Redstate

Patton was proven to be dead wrong.

Not sure really bad advice from the past should guide decisions today.

I can understand the viewpoint. I don't agree, but how do you figure he was dead wrong ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We won the cold war without having to follow Patton's strategy.

Think about it - if we invaded Russia at the end of WWII, we might have suffered a million+ casualties, seen millions more civillians killed, destroyed our economy and still, could have lost that war....

Since we won the cold war and emerged as the world's single economic and military super-power 45 years later, I say that Patton's strategy was dead wrong.

I'm not asking that you care about them, but you should at least acknowledge them.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

and I use a strange kind of arithmetic. In my arithmetic, US lives is what counts.....

noxious and odious but interesting.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

that convinces me that Hiroshima was 100% correct thing to do...

the Cambodia was the right thing to do?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You think the US was responsible for that?

You think we can keep the whole world safe from evil?

I am not so idealistic - perhaps I should be. I want to keep the US safe from evil....

the subject was whether a US intervention to limit Soviet influence in 1945 was ill-founded. In a follow up you said that you didn't care how many other people died because they don't count.

If a US intervention could have stopped Cambodia, then yes, we were responsible.

When one looks at the Soviets at the end of the war, dependent upon the US for food, truck, tank, and aircraft and without the atom bomb it is not hard to imagine a fairly short war that would have, at a minimum, stripped the Soviet Union of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and the Ukraine (all these had anti-Soviet partisans active until the early 1950s).

But as those "other" people aren't fully human I guess we need only avert our eyes.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

a fairly short war? Against the Red Army?

How did the "fairly short war" against Russia work out for Napolean or Hitler?

I am done with this thread. I don't think the US is responsible for the grotesque crimes of others....

Neither Hitler nor Napoleon had the atom bomb and the Red Army (I'm assuming you know that the Red Army didn't exist until 1918 but based on what I've read thus far I don't want to take that for granted) did not get its supplies from Hitler and Napoleon.

And please read again what is written rather than some fantasy argument you've constructed. Note the words "Eastern Europe", "Baltic States", "Ukraine." I don't think either Hitler or Napoleon, at least was we understand history on my planet, had a limited objective. YMMV.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

For those not tinmcg - who has, after all, decided to be done with this thread - who are interested: nobody is saying that the Red Army circa 1945 was not comprised of tough, well-motivated troops with substantial battle experience. They lacked, however, three crucial items: troops, air superiority and sufficient logistical capacity to sustain a war against the United States, which had all three.

The Russians had been bled white by World War II - Stalin paid for his abject stupidity with the lives of his subjects - thirty years after being bled white by World War I. Something like almost 14% of the population was killed during the course of the war - for perspective, imagine the United States losing every State that borders the Pacific Ocean - with half of that being adult males, for a suitable value of 'adult'. Their logistics train was sketchy by our standards, their ability to control airspace almost nonexistent - the Luftwaffe had been cut to pieces by American/British air forces by the time the Russians stopped retaking and started invading, which obscures this - and their best troops were not their most reliable ones (happens a lot in totalitarian militaries).

An intelligently run campaign - one where the Allied forces had deliberately fostered existing anti-Soviet anger in what was an exceptionally restless empire - could have toppled the entire thing. Absent a time machine, we'll never know for sure; for that matter, we're not in their shoes. It was a long war, people wanted to go home and that paperhanging SOB was dead.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

While Patton's plan was the right move. It might not have been within the realm of possibility. The troops in Europe had one thing on their mind after the defeat of Germany and that was going home. They were near mutiny at the thought of being shipped to the Pacific theater. Who could blame them ? The homefront had celebrated VE day. If they were told that their loved ones were now being marched off to fight the Russians, well they might well have pulled Truman out of the Whitehous to be lynched.

While we had the capability to produce atomic weapons we did not have them available. I don't recall what the lag was till the next weapon became available, but it would have precluded an atomic pre-emptive strike.

Then there is the matter of the eastern front. Stalin was itching to invade japan. If we had of attacked him in Europe he could counter with an invasion of Japan.

The other big if here is our Allies. Churchill and the Tories were voted out of power in england. Its pretty safe to say the English had had enough. Once again who could blame them.

I still say Patton had the right Idea. The stakes were too great to ignore.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You think the US was responsible for that?

No, we think Democrats were responsible for that!

Do you know ANYTHING about history at all?

Consider the alternatives though.

If Stalin had of lived longer we would have had a nuclear armed Russia invading Europe. No Ifs ands or buts about it he was preparing for it at the time of his death. The Casualties from that would have been off the charts.

The Cuban missile crisis was once again an instance where full out war was one misstep away. That would have killed a good portion of the entire species.

There have also been near misses in the early warning systems of both sides. If those had triggered an exchange well, that would have been it.

We got very lucky the way the cold war turned out. I don't discount the fortuitousness of being lucky, but just letting Russia be wasn't a smart play.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The cold war was a very dangerous time....

My dad once told me the biggest lesson he learned from combat was that once the shooting starts, nothing is ever certain...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

but we won.

I wouldn't trade a sure win for a maybe quicker win.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher won the Cold War. I'm old enough to remember (and since it's not "short term" anymore, I have confidence in it) that nobody but President Reagan and PM Thatcher could envision the world without the Soviet Union. The Congressional Appeasement Caucus was in full whine until the day the Wall came down (remember the high dudgeon from the Left when RR said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"). The CIA was caught totally flatfooted (neither the first or last time for that, huh?) and the NYT was in denial, heck to this very day. People are still giving Gorby credit for all that. Heh.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

step taken by Reagan and Thatcher! The Democrat Party went kicking and screaming into losing their Soviet allies. To hear the Left in those days, everyone in the Country was homeless, people were starving all over, and there were more children on milk cartons than living safely at home; all because of that "drugstore, truck-driving man" in the White House and his wanton warmongering and weapons buying.

In Vino Veritas

the Soviets offering to do a deal in exchange for help with the 1984 election.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

At one point, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd were all but honorary brothers to Daniel Ortega.

From CNS News

In his book ["The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."]... [Paul] Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

Two US Senators from Massachusetts, one trial for Treason. Hanging them both with the opposite ends of the same rope.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

just blockade them instead of either seizing or destroying them, but I don't think we should do any of the 3 at this point.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

sit on our hands longer? I have been screaming about Iran for more then 2 years, and still people want to leave them be. They won't let us be much longer.

Managing Editor

against Iran.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

we can continue to be disruptive in secret? Things have changed in the last few months - mainly the capture/defection of top Iranian military figures.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

freedom seekers in Iran to overthrow regime, but I don't discount your counsel Darin H.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

Interesting that the Mullahs are losing their grip, considering the stacked electoral process.

but military action against Iran has to be well thought out. There is currently a very sympathetic-to-US-interests element in Iran, and if you believe their proponents, it a pretty large element as well.

There should be a way to economically cripple Iran, as well as make their regime lose face, without turning the pro US element against us. In the long run, that element has to come to power if we're to be successful in the region.

Sink their navy (give them note to abandon it, or go down with it). Blockade their ports, cut off their gasoline, even sieze some of their outlying facilities, but be damned careful with what could be seen as indiscriminate bombing..... at least for the time being.

One of Patton's successful basic tenets was that when you engage an enemy, you should annihilate him, grind him into the dust.... not just defeat him. But that applied to enemies with whom you were engaged in total war. Patton was unfamiliar with the concept of limited war. In Iran, we're not yet to the point where we are prepared to completely crush them, and I doubt we ever will be there unless it comes as retalliation for something as onerous as, perhaps, a nuclear attack.

Saudi Arabia Increased oil profits
Other Gulf states see above
Our Oil supply, the strategic reserve will be tapped
Our troops they will get mucho target practice as the iranian army is destroyed rapidly.

As to how do we accomplish holding Iran accountable, I believe Becker's suggestion of taking out their refining capacity is simple and elegant.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I would be in favor of a blockade first.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And we don't control them all. You take out their refining capacity and blockade them their backs will be against the wall.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It is even simpler than taking out all their oil facilities. All you have to take out is the off shore oil terminals that allow loading and off loading of the tankers. Then with regular air patrols to make sure they stay out of action, the whole country collapses. A blockade is irrelevant at that point. Regular air patrols from Qatar will do the job nicely. The million man army? They are going nowhere with no gasoline. They don't have the refinery capacity. It has to be imported!

Believe it or not, it is that simple - and the Iranians know it. They are banking on the anti-war crowd to do their bidding in stopping attacks on them. So far, they have chosen correctly. Will their good fortune hold?

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

Big problems.

If you take out their refinery (note, singular), you need one air strike with a FB111 or a B2 or multiple cruise missiles. Minimal air support would be required in either case. Likely, you would not have to offensively strike the Iranian military although you would want the AF and Navy on high alert to defend against retaliatory attacks.

In order to affect a blockade, we would likely have to take out the Iranian AF, their air defense system and put a big dent in their Navy including eliminating any and all submarines they may be able to deploy. Major military action to protect the blockading fleet.

Take out their refining capacity, and maybe their military fuel reserves assuming we know where they are, and you've got a major economic upheaval in Iran. It will pretty much shut down the country.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Managing Editor

And knowledge, they will be able to manage minimal capability to support the military.

Heck the germans managed it without oil.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is why we've been in a cold war with them since the Shah was overthrown. Should have invaded in '79.

I just think holding Iran accountable that particular way is tougher than it looks.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

as for the Iranian army, I would not be too afraid of them. They would fair no better than the Iraqi army against us, especially if they were the ones on the offence.

The other points you raised are important.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

be leaving Iran free to sabotage the area to hurt us and themselves. But since they would see themselves as being hurt by the blockade, they might figure their best chance would be to hurt us too by blowing up their own assets.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

in the modern era is control of the airspace. We would have that in practical terms from the beginning, and absolutely in almost no time. If the Iranians were to commit divisions against US troops, they would be arc-lighted out of existence in short order.

The chief frustration of US forces is that we can't get anyone to engage us in what used to be known as 'the meeting engagement' anymore, where large groups of soldiers met in classic battlefield scenarios. Our technology is so good, and our military generally so adept at that kind of thing, that nobody except our close allies (e.g. Britain, Australia) stand more than a miniscule chance against us in conventional warfare, and even those guys would come up against our numbers very quickly.

The trick with Iran is that if we take military action, we keep it very limited, only to certain outlying port facilities and outlying districts. They get put out of operation and evacuated of everyone but US personnel. Establish a security zone around them and blast anything that approaches. The country will be in a complete economic shambles in no time.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

awesome power of the USA against the #1 enemy in the GWOT and nation that has and continues to wage war against our troops in Iraq, then I'll be ecstatic.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Still for now its the Brits call.

Iran has been killing American troops in Iraq since we liberated that country. We have capyuted and killed Iranians waging war against us, the United States of America, in Iraq.

That's not only our call, it's our self defense common sense no brainer duty. Don't even need a Bush doctrine much less a pre-text involving captured allied soldiers.

Iran has and is killing our soldiers.

Our call any day since 1979.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

me on all points GC. But the Brits are our allies and should get a little time. I didn't mean to imply we take orders from anyone.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html

And the links to al qaida in Iraq are as direct allies

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+al+qaeda+in+iraq

Iran in ally of al qaeda in Iraq.

The links are numerous. Iran has killed american troops in war in Iraq in alliance with al qaeda and continues to do so.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I was not doubting you. I guess I need to watch less basketball and read internet news more. :)

Here is a very good example of al qaeda and hezbollah meeting in Beirut to work out a deal for Iran to supply arms to al qaeda.
http://www.aina.org/news/20060518110454.htm

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

re The Hezbos and UBL's bunch

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

as the only opposition players in the war on terror. I keep hearing people ask what Al Qaeda had to do with Iraq, or what Al Qaeda has to do with Iran. Here's a clue. If Al Queda had never come into existence, if OBL had never been born, we would still have global terroism being exported and supported by Iran, and previously by Iraq, and Khaddafi would still have been making nuclear bombs for himself (and probably Saddam) , and Islamic terrorists would still have been killing Buddhists by the gross in Thailand over the past few years (putting the lie to it being fundamentally all about Palestine).

Hezzbolla and Hamas would still exist and be lobbing rockets into Israel. Homegrown British and Canadian Islamists would still be plotting (sometimes successfully) terror attacks in their respective communities. Chechin Islamists would still have killed dozens of school children in Russia and tried to sieze power in Chechnya. In short, Al Quaeda is but one faction of a general Islamist movement that has been flexing its muscles for some time now. And it is far from the most dangerous element of that movement.

So please don't hammer me with "what does Al Qaeda have to do with this?" It's making me bleed through my ears.

is the one of sunni and shia matters critically with respect to terrorist groups. Recently a big deal was made about the new House Intelligence chairman's confusion about this. They hate Israel, and they hate the US. They do cooperate and work together in this fight. They have no trouble setting aside any differenced they have when it comes to fighting us.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

from a tactical standpoint. They can be played against each other, and certainly in a situation like Iraq, playing them against each other is indeed a major Iranian strategy, because Shiites are in the majority and any friction works against US and Iraqi government interests and in favor of Iranian interests.

Ultimately, from a strategic standpoint, you are probably right. They will probably be willing to bury the hatchet when it comes to opposing their common enemy... us.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Your operational remedy is wrongheaded.

You hand Dinner Jacket a strategic gift: Americans invading his homeland on a small scale. Large enough to rouse the Persians to action behind their theocratic regime. Small enough to fail miserably to a war of attrition to an enemy who would enjoy internal lines of supply and more than enough foreign suppliers of arms.

Either you cross the Rubicon, or you do not. No half-measures, please. That is why I ask you to wait them out, until they are stupid enough to cross the Rubicon themselves.

Then we fight the war on our terms. Not theirs. And it will come to war. You must assume that this is what the Iranians have planned.

Or, to put it in blunt terms: "Fight like World War II, finish like World War II. Fight like Vietnam, finish like Vietnam."

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

I kind of like the idea of strategic economic disruption used against Iran. Make the lunatics fly off the handle not us.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but haven't we been waiting 28 years so as not to hand whatever jacket some "strategic" or MSM tv advantage? How many more Americans would you let them kill before you are willing to kill as many as we have to kill so that peace follows victory? No matter what some man on a persian street or some blow dry on MSNB who is watching C thinks?

Could it be wrongheaded to show paper tigerism a day longer as we wait for the right moment?

I don't know.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

This is a time of his choosing. Let him blunder, not us.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

There will come a time if things continue as they are when the Persian bomb is a reality. Then our options are substantially reduced. Once they have a bomb, they are virtually guaranteed hegemony over the area, unless, of course, Israel decides to end the argument once and for all in a big way. Which, I suspect they will, if the situation hasn't by then been 'adjusted' to a less hostile one.

If we had to, we probably have the firepower to turn every square inch of Iran into one huge glass ashtray. But military action quite a bit short of that, that puts a clamp around their collective necks and supports, rather than undermines or eliminates, internal Iranian resistance makes a whole heckuva lot more sense to me.

Eliminating the Iranian Navy, grounding their Air Force, and securing or destroying coastal refineries, oil processing, and oil shipping stations would not be all that difficult. Far more difficult would be getting Congressional approval to do it.

The Iranians are well aware that the only way they are going to get a Congressional consensus against them is by perpetrating a MAJOR event against the US. As long as they eat their meal in small bites, they are going to be able to keep making headway at our expense.

The reason we should take blockading military action now is that not taking it will ultimately be worse. It's the old 'how to deal with the buly on your block' theory. If you let him push you around for a long time, you're going to have real trouble when the time comes that you have to resist him. But if you punch him hard in the nose early on, it's unlikely a later confrontation will come to pass.

I'm in favor of B*tch-slapping them the next time they give us an excuse, rather than waiting until we have no choice but to use the boomers. But I also believe it's not going to happen.

A siezure of Iranian ports would involve landings in the Iranian homeland, exactly what the Iranians want. Then they can attack us at their leasure. You have just handed them the strategic initiative.

Rebuttable presumption to say the least. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that they want us to land in Iran and I don't see how those landings would had them the strategic initiative. It seems to me that depriving them of ports and oil revenue rather does the opposite.

At all times, tempo and choice of targets must remain in your hands. You must keep the Parthian guessing where you will strike next.

Hence the landings. The time, tempo and targets would be selected by us.

They have captured the Britons to goad us into a hasty attack. We must do nothing of the sort. We must wait until the time is right.

Don't think that is the case at all. It is looking more and more like they took the Brits to exchange them for about 350 Quds Brigade operatives now in Coalition custody.

There are, I believe, much better targets for us: the Iranian Navy for starters. They have invested considerable sums in their submarines and frigate forces. These will need to be cleaned out, along with their missile troops and radar installations along the Gulf. If you blind them strategically and deprive them of reach, you humiliate them. But you must destroy their vaunted Navy in a day.

Their navy isn't "vaunted." Its a pissant brown water navy with marginal training, huge maintenance problems, and no history of maritime competence (see the Tanker War and Operation PREYING MANTIS).

The easiest way to clean out a fleet, especially the Kilo-class subs that could be dangerous in a body of water like the Persian Gulf, is to take their ports, just like the easiest way to take out an air force is to take the O-club and swimming pool.

We've proven in two wars, the Gulf War and the Iraq War, that the only thing that takes out missiles is ground troops depriving mobile launchers of freedom of movement. In the first instance, we relied on technology to chase SCUD launchers (Iran's missile force is SCUD derivatives) and we failed in a big way. In the Iraq War we flooded the Western Desert with SOF troops and shut them down. Why you would think that a lot has changed since 2003 is unclear.

It is also unclear why you would think any of the actions you propose would blind them at a strategic level.

However, bear something in mind. Despite our anger at this; this is not, repeat not, enough of a provocation to warrant crossing the Rubicon. Once you do that with the Persian, one may have to go all the way to atomic weapons against their atomic facilities to put them down.

Actually, taking their ports and occupying the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz would go a long way towards crippling the Iranian state and its nuclear program without the costs associated with a traditional overland campaign and follow on occupation.

The ports are located on terrain that is tailor made to maximize the effect of US airpower and artillery. It is mostly desert. The areas under discussion are Arab, not Persian, and have a separatist insurgency underway right now .

You can't expect the Iranians to sit idly by while we play a quick round of Battleship with their navy. To the contrary, we can expect that they will do something like close Hormuz and send a volley of Shahab missiles somewhere.

If we're going to go after them, it makes a lot more sense to do it in a way that will stop them dead in their tracks. Taking their ports and oil terminals does that.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

just like the easiest way to take out an air force is to take the O-club and swimming pool.

LOL!
Thought you'd just slip that one past everyone did you?

a long time. Please tell me you didn't mean that remark about the Air Force.

I spent a 8 years as a fly boy, I walked into Suoi Cai Valley (Happy Valley as it was nicknamed) shoulder to shoulder with my USMC brothers, my FB-111's out of RAF Upper Heyford were the ones that shut down Libya.

I give you your other points...but that was a little out of place.

Managing Editor

that I speak the truth here.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

is wonderful. We can all be in a fist fight, and if an outsider steps in, well you know how that goes, to bad for the outsider.

It's good that we kid one another, however we each have our jobs, and we work better together then any force on earth.

Hooo-Rahhh

Managing Editor

all in the family

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

recently discovered scrolls, decided to ajudicate the case of the baby and the two women in lieu of settling quarrels between his army and his navy. The scribes recorded him retreating from the ancient version of the Pentagon saying :"Oy, the commanders are at it again - I'm outta here!"

Didn't know that? That's why you need to give me the archaeology beat on THR. :>)

And I say this as a USAF vet who lived in the muck with the "best" the other services had to offer.

Our USMC son spent an exciting year on Okinawa. He spent the few "spare" moments he had a Kadena AFB.

...The Enlisted Club at Kadena was nicer than the Marine's O Club.
...AF women are infinitely better looking than women Marines.
...AF women like Marines better than Marine women like Marines.
...Airmen get really pissed off when the AF women get picked up by Marines, but won't do anything about it.

Josh was very fond of the support services supplied by the AF to the Marine Corps.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

And the "crossing of the Rubicon" was a move by Caesar on his own country.

That they are naive enough to think that the West won't see through it, is classic Khomeini.

In recent years, there has been darned little that hasn't had the West significantly bamboozled. Our Liberal brethren can't seem to see through the sheerest of veils.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Should have been "...adults in the West..." :)

....doing nothing.
Iran has been killing and maiming Americans and her allies for years and has been made to pay too small a price.
I don't think an invasion of Iran is advisable or feasable even under the best of circumstances.
Massive air attacks augmented by naval bombardment and cruise missle attacks against leadership and military and oil producing/shipping targets however, may convey to the Iranian people and their leadership a message that America and her allies are no longer willing(as we have been for the past 20 or so years) to turn the other cheek to Iranian aggression.
America still has military options to bring to bear upon Iran that do not include Invasion.
We should use them. And soon.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

but only if diplomatic efforts fail. First we should try diplomacy. Then we try more sanctions. Then we resort to force. Above all, we must follow Britain's lead on this issue. It is their soldiers who will die if we screw this up.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

1-Iran is directly killing Americans in Iraq. This is not about Brits per se. Iran is allied with our enemies in Iraq and against US, the USA in the GWOT.

Did you not read my post?

You see my title and what the MSM is reporting and live in that world. I live in the real world which includes lots of things the MSM doesn't report.

The insane don't spend time in the real world.

Check out your world and sanity.

2-We have the resources to take the oil fields and ports in theatre now. Oil fields and ports are not suburban Baghdad and if we have to, we can just use more fire power and kill more Iranian forces than we have been willing to kill Iraqis standing in the way of our objectives.

3-Iran has been "retaliating" in their mind to The Shah or to the fact that we don't worship looking forward to the return of the 5th Imam since 1979.

3-4-5-Your willingness only to attack non-desperate enemies that will surrender immediatly and not be mean to us is called appeasement or cowardice and as bin Laden called it "paper tiger." That brought us the 1998 embassy bombings and 9/11.

6-I suspect your brother realized he was enlisting in a military organization in a dangerous world.

7-I respect Blair to defend the UK.

8-All the more reason to takeaction to prevent them from doing "this" before. This includes killing Americans in Iraq. How many would you let them kill before acting and would the fact that they capture Brits make that number of American dead have to be higher.

9-Iraq owes us for liberating them.

The real world is just insane isn't it?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

There are a lot of thing that trouble me about this post but this comment...

Iraq owes us for liberating them.

really takes the cake.

They OWE us? What exactly do they OWE us?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But of course, we did liberate them and most Iraqis acknowledge the debt of gratitude. Do you believe that you owe anyone a debt of gratitutde for obtaining and preserving your liberty WOW-ster?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Do you believe that you owe anyone a debt of gratitutde for obtaining and preserving your liberty WOW-ster?

I do not ask for your assistance but you provide it anyway I do not feel any debt towards you. I may appreciate your efforts but I certainly do not feel indebted because of them.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

that what you have said constitutes a respectable argument. Your points, in order:

1) No one has been more consistent in their support for completing the mission in Iraq than I have. And I haven't just supported it on this forum, but elsewhere as well.[1] For that reason, and others, I strongly disagree with any plan to widen the war into Iran at this time. It is true that Iran has supported the insurgency in Iraq with money, supplies, and personel. But they have been doing that since the beginning of the war. Up till this point we have not seized on that fact as sufficient justification for an invasion because our government - including the Republican President you and I helped re-elect - has decided that it is not in our interests to do so. So why change our tactics now?

2) Again, you are assuming that we have resources that simply do not exist. Brigades and divisions aren't pieces on a chessboard that can be moved around at whim. It takes a lot of time and money to move them from place to place. We spent a year and a half building up for the invasion of Iraq, and if we were to invade Iran, even with the limited objective of taking their oil fields and port cities, it would take several months, not weeks or days to get the necessary troops into position. And even if we committed to that option we would have to move still more troops into Iraq to take the place of those we are sending to Iran. In the long run, we would have to nearly empty the United States of soldiers to attempt such a project. What protection would would there be for the homeland? And of course, we haven't even begun to talk about how difficult it would be to get the necessary funding from Congress for a new war with Iran.

3) I have no idea what you're talking about there.

3-4-5) Is it appeasement / cowardice to oppose invading another country with troops we don't have to avenge a wrong that was done to someone else? Is it cowardice to want to finish one war before we start another? Is it cowardice to want to give the British a chance to bring their 15 servicemembers back alive before we commit to an action that would surely result in their deaths?

6) Yes, he did. He volunteered to serve wherever they send him. On the other hand, he did not volunteer to serve in two places at once, meaning that he can hardly be in Anbar and Iran at the same time. And that's the problem: there simply aren't enough of him to go around.

7) And so he will, and he is far better qualified to decide what is best for his country's security than you are.

8) Again, I'm not following you. I suspect you didn't proof read this part.

9) The problem is that we haven't finished liberating them yet, have we? If we don't succeed in Iraq they will fall under the thumb of the Iranians, or else descend into civil war. In order to succeed we need to focus our resources on Iraq, not open a new front with Iran. Otherwise, we won't have liberated anybody.

Springfield News-Leader, January 29, 2007

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

The newspaper citation at the bottom of the post is supposed to be listed as footnote # one. It is the citation for an article I wrote in support of the troop surge in January.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

1-Iran widened the war in 1979 and every year since, especially since 2003 when they have provided material and their support to our enemies in Iraq and around the world including al Qaeda proper and al Qaeda in Iraq, and have sent their own forces into Iraq where they have killed American soldiers. Iran is waging war against us in Iraq.

2-I don't assume anything. Can't never could do nothing. That is an American expression. (Probably Southern given the double negative.-I can say that. You can't.-It did not originate in Europe, i.e. your ideological home?

3-Not surprised given your lack of English comprehension concerning what constitutes insanity and respectability. (Hint: read your own posts. Then Mine. Consult Merriam-Webster's often)

3-4-5-Visit the graves of Americans dead at the hands of Iran in Iraq.

6-Can't still never did anything

7-I always know I'm winning an argument when my opponent resorts to personal connections or the credibility of someone not engaged in the debate or to claim that someone is right because of who they are and not the logic of the argument given the facts and history.

8-You are clueless.

9-Walk and chew gum? Or send out a green light to kill Americans until Anbar is Hartford?

(If you don't "get" the above it doesn't mean I didn't proofread. It means that you are above the level of debate you are able to handle.)

Despite your ravings, I refuse to question your sanity and respectability.

Will pray for your Son. Truly.

God bless America and the Leverkuhn family.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

First, it was my brother, not my son, who's currently stationed in Iraq. I don't hold it against you that you've already forgotten that, but I think it shows very clearly which one of us is having reading comprehension problems. And for the record, every time I write a letter, or a paper, or a blog post I have a Merriam-Webster dictionary open. I don't catch all my mistakes, but I dare say that what I write is at least comprehensible. Whether you like it or not your points 3 and 8 were not comprehensible. You may have known what you were trying to say, but nobody else would.

And for your information I study Southern history and culture as part of my professional training. I've read scores of books on these subjects. There is nothing Southern about double negatives or ungrammatical English in general. In fact, many of the greatest American writers - Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Wolfe, Mark Twain, etc. - have been Southerners. Bad English has no homeland; it's just wrong. Oh, and I've never been to Europe.

Furthermore, I have visited the graves of American soldiers who have died in Iraq. It is a sobering experience. That is why I would rather not have any more corpses than necessary. It is also why I am determined that their sacrifices in Iraq will mean something in the end, and that means we must finish our work in Iraq. We can not do that if we start one war on top of another to no real purpose, and with no end in sight.

Finally, if you think you're winning this argument you're even more deluded than I thought you were. Like most Americans, I respect Tony Blair for the help he has given this country. I also respect Blair because he is the Prime Minister of our most consistent ally. He was elected by his people to handle precisely this sort of situation. Because British intelligence is usually pretty good he also probably knows more about the situation than either you or I know. And unlike you he actually has the interests of his people, and especially those 15 British captives, in mind. I simply suggested that we should respect his prerogatives in this matter. If you can't respect that, you're not just being foolish, you're acting like a jerk.

Are you a woman posing as a man?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing Iran. We begin bombing in five minutes.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Who said you were disrespectable? I didn't use that word. I don't think your argument is respectable, but that's another matter.

And no, I am no more a woman than you are a general.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I remember the news media playing up the "upcoming battle with the IRG Medina Division" back in 2003, as though it were a WWF pay-per-view title match.

That "battle" lasted about six hours - especially when they tried to move on our ground troops under "cover" of a nighttime sandstorm.

Oops. IR-sensing death from above made that a very short engagement.

But not much. You make a very important point that never seems to be understood by either the media or the Democrats. Raw numbers don't matter. Lethality matters. The biggest difference is that their soldiers may be willing to die for the Mullahs. Our military is certainly willing, and very able, to make that happen.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Enough with harming ourselves and saying it can't be done.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

head or your heart. Great analysis. Glad you're at Red State.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

in 1993 and again on 911. Their goal was to kill 50,000 people and crash the US economy.

People need to remember that. We were LUCKY to lose 3000 citizens on 911. The goal was 50,000 and an American economy in ruin. Don't believe for a minute that Iran wouldn't do the same if given the chance.

One more reason to prevent them from EVER getting nukes!

"ANWAR can produce 2 million barrels of oil a day making Iran irrelevent, or the 3 oil fields next to the North Slope field that were purposely shut down by the US Congress before they went into operation, even though working wells are there, wells the US Congress ordered capped, can produce 4 million barrels of oil a day, or the offshore sites which were placed off limits by the US Congress (pretty much the entire US seaboard) can produce tens of millions of barrels of oil a day. Any one of these options makes Iran totally irrelevent."

I don't think you can back any of that up.

ANWR hasn't even been drilled yet. Even if it's productive, nobody thinks it's bigger than Prudhoe Bay, and IIRC Prudhoe never made 2 million barrels per day. Heck, I don't even know if the Alaska Pipeline can handle that kind of volume.

I've never heard of the 3 oil fields that were shut down by Congress.

4 million barrels is an awful lot, about 80% of US domestic production, including Alaska.

The offshore east coast hasn't been drilled yet (since the '70's anyway). All that was found back then was natural gas in quantities that were deemed noncommercial. If Congress decided today to open up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf for leasing, and if oil were to be discovered there, first production would be about 10 years from now.

Iran controls the land on one side of the Straits of Hormuz, which they could effectively shut down with surface to surface missiles if they wanted to. They might be incurring the wrath of God (Jehovah, not Allah), but they could do it, and we would notice.

With 2 million bbl/day gone from world markets, you'd probably see crude oil prices double. That kind of volume won't be quickly or easily replaced.

Vladimir, I will address your points one by one.

"ANWR hasn't even been drilled yet."
Irrelevent. With today's technology you don't have to drill a well to estimate recoverable reserves.

"Even if it's productive, nobody thinks it's bigger than Prudhoe Bay, and IIRC Prudhoe never made 2 million barrels per day."
Different experts have put different estimates on the recoverable reserves in ANWR. The experts' estimates range from a low of 900,000 bbls a day to 2 million bbls a day. Here is a report from the Secretary of Interior that pegs the estimate at 1.4 million bbls a day. http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

"Heck, I don't even know if the Alaska Pipeline can handle that kind of volume."
True, maximum daily throughput of the Alaska Pipeline is 2.136 million bbl. Current throughput is 759,000 bbls a day. Throughput is increased by adding more pumping stations. So, if the 1.4 million bbls a day figure is accurate the pipeline can handle it, if the highest estimate of 2 million bbls a day is accurate then more pumping stations need to be added to add 600,000 bbls a day throughput capability, certainly achievable. Here is a link that explains the facts about the pipeline. http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/default.asp

"I've never heard of the 3 oil fields that were shut down by Congress."
And you expected to have heard of them why? The story behind the shutdown is quite simple. The big oil companies did not want such a large daily output of oil added to the world market because that would depress the price of oil, so they bribed, er gave campaign contributions, to key senators on the right committees and the wells were capped and the areas where the wells exist were designated wildlife refuges protecting such endangered species as seagulls. Seriously, no one could make this stuff up, it is too bizarre. Since the media has proven to be a bunch of cowardly scumbags in the pockets of big corporations why do you expect to have heard of this? There are proven reserves and capped wells (ordered capped by US Congress) at Gull Island and Kuparik. Each of these fieds is immense. Oil reserve finds of this size indicate the presence of more oil reserves in the vast north slope, prudhoe bay area. Many people have written about this.

"4 million barrels is an awful lot, about 80% of US domestic production, including Alaska."
I'm not sure what your point is. The fields exist, the reserves are proven. The capped oil wells exist.

"The offshore east coast hasn't been drilled yet (since the '70's anyway). All that was found back then was natural gas in quantities that were deemed noncommercial. If Congress decided today to open up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf for leasing, and if oil were to be discovered there, first production would be about 10 years from now."
I don't know where you got your data for these statements, but you are completely wrong. This report estimates proven offshore reserves EXCLUDING the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to be 2o billion bbls.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/oilgas_general...
I think that this report is far too low because the Interior Department estimates reserves in the Continental Shelf to be 120 billion bbls.

Cuba just announced that they are going to enter a joint venture with China to drill off the coast of Florida on the cuban side of the Florida straights. The Chinese estimate that the reserves on the Cuban side are 5 billion bbls.

"Iran controls the land on one side of the Straits of Hormuz, which they could effectively shut down with surface to surface missiles if they wanted to. They might be incurring the wrath of God (Jehovah, not Allah), but they could do it, and we would notice."
You know nothing about the coalition's military capabilities if you think the Iranian navy and air force would last more than a couple of hours. I know a little bit about the US military's anti-missile launcher capabilities (it is what I did when I worked for them). Once you launch a missile, the missile launching platform is toast-burnt to a crisp, whether that is a ship, plane, mobile platform, or permanent platform like a silo. The Iranians can't close the Persian Gulf for more than a few hours. After that they won't have the capability to launch missiles, or anything else.

"With 2 million bbl/day gone from world markets, you'd probably see crude oil prices double. That kind of volume won't be quickly or easily replaced."
Current world exports of oil are 45 million bbls a day. 2 million bbls a day is under 5% of that. The capped oil wells on the north slope can be turned on with one phone call. Removing 5% of the oil exports won't double the price of oil. Even if it did, we are at war with lunatics who want to develop nuclear weapons to kill us and who are actively murdering our soldiers by dressing in American uniforms and kidnapping then executing our soldiers. When you are at war with an enemy that wants you dead the price of your commodities does not dictate how aggressively you fight the war.

I'll defer to your knowledge of the Iranian anti-ship capability , and the US military's ability to neutralize same, if you defer to my knowledge of oil and gas reserves and development of same.

Gale Norton notwithstanding, there is no way anyone "knows" what a prospective oil and gas structure, trend or basin holds with out drilling it. Several wells may be needed to delineate the size and confirm the commerciality of the find.

{achance probably knows better than me -- I'm under the impression that the only seismic data available over ANWR is some old-vintage 2-D data; has the area been off limits for surface exploration for the last 20 years or so? A new 3-D survey would probably send both environmentalists and calving caribou into a tizzy..}

As for reserve estimates and projected flowrates of ANWR, offshore Cuba, or the Federal OCS, they are really anybody's guess.

And what is absolutely uncontestable is the amount of time required to bring this new production on line.

All's I'm sayin' is that when we go to rattling sabres, it would be nice to know if we have a pistol in our back pocket. And in this case, we don't.

on the federal lands since ANILCA in '80. There's been a good bit on nearby State lands some of which has enabled a "peek" into ANWR. As I discussed below about developing the State lands, the "ANWR" reservoir could be tapped from State land and gravel islands in State waters, but then you've got to get the oil to the TAPS and once again, you get the Greenie virtual veto over anything that involves federal regulation.

In Vino Veritas

about the potential for Alaska oil supplanting anything these days. But to the first point, the TAPS can and has carried over 2.1 mm/bbl./dy. in the mid-eighties. Some pump stations have been shut down and it is a 30 year old property that has had questionable maintenance, so its current capacity is uncertain but still well above a million bbl/dy. The reason it is currently only working at .6-.8 mm/bbl./dy. is simply lack of oil to put in it. Secondarily, were production increased, there may not be sufficient tanker capacity, at least tankers that are up to current standards, to move it.

There is a lot of oil on the NS; ANWR, NPRA (the long-proven Naval Petroleum Reserve - Alaska or PET-4), subsidiary fields around Prudhoe, and reserves immediately offshore of ANWR under State control. The latter is the reason for the current overweening concern for Polar Bear habitat. The Greenies don't own the Alaska Legislature as they do the US Congress, so Alaska could develope those fields itself, thus the sudden concern for the Polar Bear and interest in declaring it endangered despite the fact that current populations are far above historic levels. If the bears are declared endangered, federal jurisdiction is invoked and the Greenies and their Democrat running dogs can stop Alaska from developing the fields.

All that said, Alaska oil is enormously expensive to develop and move to market and it is fundamentally uneconomic to develope so long as supplies can be procured elsewhere. Most of that cost structure is caused by government, but short of foreign troops pillaging boutiques in Beverley Hills, the government isn't likely to change its rules. Even should Alaska take a real interest in developing its own reserves, the obstacles are formidable. First, the State could not afford to do it from ongoing revenues, so it would have to use Permanent Fund financing. All the Left has to do is convince fifty percent plus one Alaskans that doing this would cause them to be unable to buy a new flat screen with this year's Permanent Fund Dividend, and they'd vote against using the PF for investment capital. Second, if the State were to do it, the very powerful unions here would have to be placated with something close to Davis-Bacon wages and a Project Labor Agreement. The oil industry isn't notably union friendly, so, at minimum, the unions would insist that any development on the State's dime would be union work. Third, I'm not at all certain that the unions could be bought. All the federal spending of the last several years means that they're all working, so there isn't much demand for work and using labor imported from the Lower 48 brings its own issues. Thus, the unions would have to choose between being Democrat loyalists and getting the work; I'm not really sure which they'd choose. And fourth, should Alaska oil production be dramatically increased, there's no place to put it. There is no refinery capacity on the West Coast, so it would have to be transhipped at Panama and shopped on the Gulf and East Coasts. The additional shipping costs will make it minimally if at all profitable to move the oil. The solution, of course, is to export it to the Orient since oil is fungible and Mid-East oil formerly going to the Orient would just go, more cheaply BTW, to the East and Gulf Coasts. But since it would take some sort of national security threat to get any development in Alaska on federal lands, the politics wouldn't allow export. We ran into the same thing in the original NS development and basically threw away all of our mid-eighties production, most of which was sold at or below production and shipping costs.

In Vino Veritas

damage they can do to the world oil market as they get more desperate now would we?

great posts WWV, all of them

Thanks for your insight

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Let the Persian take the first hostile act. I know that goes against the grain on this board, but it is vitally important to be unified at home.

In this respect, Democrats have their uses. Against the fascist theocracy of Iran, every effort will have to be made to force the Democrats to buy into this war this time. Too many Democrats do not believe that there is actually a threat.

Our enemies understand this and watch our politics closely. All to many Dems have become European Social Democrats in their approach to the world. The "Party of Harry Truman" is long dead, and lacks the killer instinct needed to close with and annihilate an enemy. Roosevelt and Truman understood this: thus, Hiroshima. Democrats had a plain understanding of war in those days.

Victory or Defeat. There is no middle ground. The Persian understands this. Liberal Democrats refuse to, so eager are they to split hairs and avoid the true nature of our enemies. Not that it's "1938" or any of that nonsense being peddled by Netanyahu. Every era has its own unique dangers. Too many on the Left are willing to excuse the Iranians so they can stoke their anger at the Republicans.

The Iranians must be allowed to take the first hostile act, like the Japanese before them. In the short run, we take losses. In the long run, national unity is paramount to the successful prosecution of the war, if the Persians are so determined that there must be war.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

in Iraq to date, to claim we are still waiting for Iran to commit "the first hostile act."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Can we ship them some of the bureaucracy too?

How about our State Depertment...just so they never recover!

Iran's killing of Americans in Iraq. And woe to Iran for any reasonable outcome for then by alienating me and my kind.

Take the ports before Iran blows them in desperation.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson