Archive for the 'Iran Invasion' Category

Invade Iran or McCain loses?

June 27, 2008

If George W. Bush does a missile strike against Iran, it will lead to losses that lead to an Obama win. It will be another Bush defeat. Bush has given us defeats out of victory from 9/11 to now.

If Bush does nothing, McCain will say nothing, and McCain is another Bush defeat term. John Amnesty McCain now offers nothing. McCain submits to Islam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Rice surrender, Iraq myopia, and the other Bushisms.

If Bush invades Iran now, he gets a clear military victory, the first since 2003 in a war that we all know will last 100 years and has lasted since 622 AD, Year 1 of the Islamic Calendar. Its time for a real victory. Iran is a real enemy. Everyone knows that from 1979. Calling the US Great Satan said that under Iranian Islam, they are in perpetual war with the United States.

People will not vote for a program of defeat. Bush McCain offer defeat, surrender, immigration invasion, Islamic takeover, mosques and footbaths in every airport, no alcohol in cabs, Red Crescent Memorials, UAE hunting with bin Laden sheiks running our ports, Saudi speaking fees, etc. People won’t vote for that.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/iran-invasion-vote-draft-negotiate-vote/

On Charlie Rose we heard that the plan now is let Iran have the bomb. Why vote for Mexico McCain to let Iran have the bomb?

http://www.charlierose.com/home

David Sanger June 26, 2008, on North Korea but end was on Iran. Rose asked and Sanger said, our plan now is let Iran have nukes.

That makes Bush McCain liars and defeatists. Why vote for them? Why vote for these surrender monkeys? They call us bigot and surrender to Islam and Mexico. Why vote for that? Many people on the right would like to see them tried for treason in covering up for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Fair or not, that is what they offer the right along with amnesty, H-1B, Chinese and Indian student takeovers of universities, and every insult and indignity they can throw at us from immigration.

==

As part of the war, Bush should suspend all immigration, guest worker, student visa, and all visits except from our closest allies in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan. Bush should also tell the illegals they have to register and go home in an orderly fashion with dignity. He should build a wall. He also should get a draft and expand the military. He should also remove Muslims from all sensitive positions in the government as part of security.

This would be a popular war victory strategy. It would reward the people by ending all immigration, guest worker, student visa, and guest visa except from real close allies. This is what is popular.

Bush is a stubborn president who has vendettas against Buchanan Perot voters, and dislikes Americans. He wants them fearful of their jobs and with low wages and without benefits. They get that message. McCain has the same attitude. McCain thinks Americans are draft dodgers who left him high and dry and now is his chance to take revenge on them by immigration. They sense that. Bush McCain present hatred of Americans as their program. That will get them a loss. Bush and his administration will be investigated for years. Some will go to prison. That is what their stupid arrogant stupidity is going to earn them.

The above is hypotheses, speculation or opinion. Statements are made sharply for hypothesis testing and to contrast with conventional wisdom. All other disclaimers apply. This is draft and preliminary and subject to revision. Comments and corrections are welcome.

Advertisements

Invade Iran Surround Pakistan Denuke Muslim World

February 26, 2008

Any other course of action won’t work. We have to invade Iran to find their entire program and eliminate it. We have to surround Pakistan and blockade it to give up its nukes. That means linking our ground forces in Afghanistan to our ships in the Indian Ocean. That requires us to occupy Iran.

We will need to draft at least 2 million men to do this with overwhelming force. We could invade Iran with the army in Iraq at a pinch, but our purposes would be better served to have a draft army at least on the way.

If Iran agrees to let us use Eastern Iran for our troops and to give up its nuclear program under our inspection then we don’t have to fight it. To get that we have to have a draft of 2 million men and be ready to invade. We can’t simply wait. Waiting is how Russia and China got nukes. Waiting is how North Korea got to where it is. Waiting is suicide for us. We can’t allow a Muslim nuclear world. That is inconsistent with our survival.

What is happening with Musharraf shows we can’t let Pakistan keep nukes. They have sold them under Bush’s nose. We have no plan in Washington. We have people who just hope the Muslims will be like us.

A discussion from a liberal point of view of the options is here:

http://12angrymen.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/bad-to-worse-americas-options-on-iran-part-ii-invading-iran/

What are Putin’s motives in Iran?

October 17, 2007

Does Putin want to make Iran into a nuclear state, armed with Russian anti-ship Sunburn missiles and other advanced technology from Russia and China?  Does Putin want Iran as a regional power that threatens American interests, including the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf?  Does that help Russia keep the price of oil and gas high?

Does Putin want payback for the US, EU and NATO expanding into Eastern Europe?  Does he feel betrayed or threatened?  Has Putin returned to cold war emotions he was taught in the KGB in East Germany?  Does Putin fear the West because he saw that East Germany was in better shape than Russia even under Soviet rule?

If we assume that Putin does intend to make Iran into a regional power opposed to the U.S. what should we do?  Shouldn’t we do a ground invasion of Iran to remove its regime, nuclear program, Russian anti-ship Sunburn missiles, and other weapons?  Isn’t this the lesson of Iraq?  Hit them when its easy?

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were under 200.  Occupation phase deaths have been over 3000.  Those deaths are valuable only to give us a position in Iraq.  Shouldn’t we use it? Isn’t the only way that those deaths are not in vain, is if we use the ground taken to invade and defeat our enemy, Iran, while it is still relatively easy?

Iran may have already prepared a secret finding that it is at war with the United States under Islam.  See Iran War Fatwa Hypothesis. This is because Iran is legalistic and needs a written finding already to supply munitions in Iraq, as well as older actions like declaring the U.S. the Great Satan.

Russia is also legalistic.  Does Putin have a written finding that Russia is in a cold war with the West?  Was the killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London a consequence of that cold war finding?  Are we in the New Cold War with Russia?

Re Kenneth Timmerman on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Columbia

September 24, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D9982757-9390-45A6-A9B2-59DFDC77A603

Hitler’s Muslim Nephew Comes to New York
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 24, 2007

Comment on above article:

Kenneth R. Timmerman has fallen into the same trap that some on the left do, trying to stop people from speaking and making the debate over procedure and not substance. Its what Ahmadinejad has to say and his credibility that matter, and the response to that. This works for Timmerman but he can’t pursue it partly because Front Page is pushing him towards theatrics and away from substance.

Timmerman talks about suing in court. When you sue, you send out depositions to make the other side’s people talk. Timmerman is doing an anti-deposition service here. Timmerman is helping Iran protect its president from running off his mouth, something not in Iran’s interest.

Iran is letting him have a long rope because they think we are impotent, for domestic consumption, for Islamic consumptions, and because they have mis-estimated. Ahmadinejad sends the message that Iran is dangerous. He should speak everywhere he wants and take questions without the police hovering around those asking questions.

This is an error Front Page has a tendency to lurch into. It undermines its credibility by adopting some of the worst tactics of the left at precisely the wrong time. Ahmadinejad is here, and we need to concentrate people’s attention on substance, Iran is supplying weapons to use against US troops.

Has a fatwa already been approved that attacking all Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is Islamic? NATO is in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Was this because Iran has already prepared a secret fatwa saying it is Islamic to attack Western forces in both Iran and Afghanistan? That includes NATO in Afghanistan?

The protests have become agitprop against their own side. The issue should be what is Iran doing, are they attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan through proxies, have they already approved a fatwa that in effect declares war on the US, NATO and other coalition forces such as Australia. The question should be what is the credibility of the Iranian president.

Instead, the tactic adopted, protest marches, pressure on Columbia or Bloomberg not to let him speak or appear, focuses the attention away from Iran and onto the protest movements. This may help them with fund raising but undermines them with the public. If the goal is to get the apathetic middle to focus on Iran and its president, this is failing.

The neocon right is instead making itself look ridiculous. They are making themselves look like a caricature, anti-Islamic warmongers who can’t talk substance. Iran’s leaders probably were not smart enough to predict this would happen, but if they were, the neocon right has fallen into their trap.

== 8:51 AM 24 Sep 2007 Reply to a Comment at Front Page

“Your Freedom of Speech, is payed by the lives of our students. ”

This shows the misconception that Front Page is under as well. The issue is being cast as a free speech issue by those against Iran. They are missing their chance to be heard. Its not Iran that is not being heard, its those who have criticism of substance of Iran whose chance is being lost to be heard or taken seriously.

We need a draft of 2 million men. We need to have Congress pass a set of conditions for Iran. We need a bipartisan team to negotiate with Iran in Geneva. This takes getting the public to buy in to these measures.

Where are the neocons headed? A missile strike on Iran when our army is next door. You don’t attack a country with missiles that your army is next to unless you are ready for a ground war. We need a much bigger army. That takes getting the support of the US public.

To get the support of the US public, we need the president of Iran to run his mouth.

Islam is a legalistic system. They are supporting attacks on our troops. To do that, they had to make a fatwa or other finding that it was Islamic to supply munitions against US and NATO forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If its required by Islam to oppose the West in Iraq, then it is also required to oppose the West, i.e. NATO in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion. The munitions supplied by Iran’s government required, within the legalistic system of Islam to be justified on Islamic grounds. A fatwa against US forces in Iraq on Islamic grounds would apply to NATO on Islamic grounds. Thus Iran has likely approved a finding that it is at war with NATO in Afghanistan on Islamic grounds.

This is the issue, not a free speech issue.

== Comment at Jihad Watch

Link to Columbia webcast info and 60 Minutes transcript links

Has Iran issued a secret fatwa that finds that it is Islamic to supply munitions against US forces in Iraq? Does that mean it is Islamic to do the same against NATO forces in Afghanistan? Has Iran, in effect, made a finding that it is at war with the US and NATO as well as coalition members such as Australia?

That is discussed at the above link and at the link at my name.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion.

This comment is consistent with the hypothesis that an Islamic fatwa was prepared and approved in Iran for supporting operations against US troops in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan. Islam has a legalistic tendency in it. So a finding that Iran has a duty under Islam to support the fight in Iraq seems like a logical necessity for the more than casual and sustained support they are making. If its Islamic to support the insurgency in Iraq, then it must also be in Afghanistan?

“All infidels are but one nation”? Also, the US is one nation and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be strange if Islam required Iran to fight the US in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. But if Islam requires fighting the US in Afghanistan, it also requires fighting NATO in Afghanistan.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018247.php

==Added 12:54 PM Monday Sep 24 2007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070924/cm_huffpost/065519

 Azadeh Ensha  Sun Sep 23, 10:21 PM ET

Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here’s why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad’s Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more “evidence” the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime’s elimination — like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad’s words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn’t afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.

As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O’Neil rightly notes: “If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr.”

Iran Stochastic Dominance Draft 2 million men

September 5, 2007

Strict stochastic dominance means that for each outcome, the result is as good or better with the dominating plan or action (or control) than the dominated plan or action (or control). By this definition, a draft of 2 million men, stochastically dominates not drafting 2 million men in our dealings with Iran.

We can consider 3 actions in combination with a draft or no draft. For each of these 3 actions, there is a good and bad outcome. The probability of the good outcome goes up with a draft for each of the possible actions.

Action Bad Outcome Good Outcome

No strike Iran builds nuke Iran gives in

Missile Strike Iran strikes back Iran gives in

Invasion Big Insurgency Little Insurgency

In each case, a draft moves or tends to move us from the bad outcome to the good outcome. So a draft stochastically dominates no draft in combination with each of the 3 possible actions towards Iran.

With a draft, whether we invade Iran, or attack Iran with a missile strike, or we negotiate in Geneva or Vienna, the result is better than if don’t draft. If we are ready to invade Iran, and Iran realizes this, we will get better outcomes in each case. An invasion of Iran will be costly and expensive.

A missile strike when we are not ready to invade Iran gives us the following problem. If we pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf to avoid their Russian Sunburn anti-ship missiles,when can ships, civilian or military go back into the Persian Gulf? The answer is never.

How do we supply Iraq or even our forces in Kuwait, if ships can’t go through the Persian Gulf after a missile strike? A missile strike is not a plan that makes sense dynamically, unless we were poised for invasion. Even then, we would face the issue of what happens when we stand down our poised for invasion military. We would be hoping for regime change or some buy in from the Iranians not to retaliate when they had the chance.

This is a separate issue from stochastic dominance for each choice with a draft rather than without. This is choosing among the 3 choices. The two outer choices, no strike or invasion and an invasion of Iran may dominate the compromise choice of a missile strike.

The missile strike and air bombardment option is based more on wishes than on thinking dynamically through time. This has been the weakness of the entire Bush presidency. There has been no thought given to the action and reactions of the players in the Middle East and the evolution through time. They also didn’t think about the other side realizing that our military wasn’t large enough to manage the multiple conflicts or potential conflicts we had in the Middle East, South Asia and North Korea.

The Bush presidency has been an object lesson in poor planning and strategy. It shows how failing to think dynamically, in terms of several moves and counter-moves of multiple players will play out. They didn’t think about how information would evolve in that situation. The current situation is one where the US is seen as weak by both Iran and Pakistan, our main adversaries. For this the US has gained temporary victories over the 2 weak players, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld is partly to blame for this. But it is also the fault of Dick Cheney, the neocons, Paul Wolfowitz, and George Bush.

Invade Iran: Air Attack Won’t Work

August 28, 2007

The one benefit of Israel’s air attack plan in Lebanon in 2006 was to show to the US that an air attack won’t work now anymore than it did in the Battle of Britain or the air war over Germany.

Iran can respond to an air attack by unleashing the Mahdi army in Iraq.  It has Russian supplied anti-ship Sunburn missiles.  Iran is dangerous, more so than Saddam.  Iranians are more nationalistic than Iraqis, and this includes the Iranian diaspora and secular Iranians.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=384CFE53-5830-4377-B773-0F53C0602871 

Christiane vs. Christians and Jews

By Phyllis Chesler
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/27/2007Christiane Amanpour’s hit piece on Christians and Jews and the West in general shows how a Christian Iranian ex-pat in the West identifies with Iran in a war with the West.  We should not expect anything else.  In a war with Iran, we need a decisive victory and occupation that renders Iran’s assets and resources useless.

Study: US preparing ‘massive’ military attack against Iran
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday August 28, 2007

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Study_US_preparing_massive_military_attack_0828.html 

“Considering a war with Iran:
A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East”
Embargoed to 01.00 Hours GMT
28 August 2007
Dr Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher
September 2007
1

Page 65 of the pdf covers Iran’s possible responses to an air attack.

http://www.cisd.soas.ac.uk/index.asp

Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy

West’s Rational and Irrational Choices on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan

August 23, 2007

We present a set of rational and irrational choices the West has for its policy in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf.

Scenario 1: Bleed in Afghanistan.

US forces in Afghanistan, out of Iraq. Iran and Pakistan both nuclear and both supporting insurgency in Afghanistan to keep US monthly casualty rate high. Iran,Iraq, and Pakistan bases of international terrorism.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Stupid policymakers.
Advocates: This is supported by some Democratic candidates for president and some other leading Democrats. There is also some Republican support for this. This is also favored by the MSM as inevitable, and therefore righteous, since its bad for us.

Scenario 2: Bleed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

US forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Iran and Pakistan both nuclear and both supporting insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq to keep US casualty rate high. Iran and Pakistan bases of international terrorism.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Stupid policymakers.
Advocates: This is close to a second choice supported by some Democratic and Republican candidates for president and some other leading Democrats and Republicans. This is also somewhat favored by the MSM as inevitable, and therefore righteous, since its bad for us.

Scenario 3: Admit defeat and bring the war home.

US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Persian Gulf. Iran and Pakistan nuclear. Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq bases of international terrorism. US allows immigration and travel from Islamic lands to West.

Score: Bad for US.
Evaluation: Appeasing policymakers.
Advocates: Some in MSM, Some Democrats.

Variant of 1, 2 and 3: An ineffective missile and air attack on Iran leading to the Persian Gulf being closed to shipping and the isolation of US forces in Iraq, if any, and Kuwait from supply and naval support. This variant is somewhat unstable and leads either to war with Iran, or withdrawal from Iraq, Kuwait and the Gulf because of lack of supply.

Scenario 4a: Invade Iran, Surround and Blockade Pakistan, Stay in Iraq.

US invades Iran, surrounds Pakistan and blockades it with India to give up nukes. US stays in Iraq and Afghanistan. Travel from Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq to West is not allowed. Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq are not effective bases for terrorism against West. Stop travel from Islamic countries to West.

Score: Improving for US.
Evaluation: Policy is trying to match means to ends.
Advocates: Almost no one.

Scenario 4b: Invade Iran, Surround and Blockade Pakistan, leave Iraq.

US invades Iran, surrounds Pakistan and blockades it with India to give up nukes. US leaves Iraq but stays in Afghanistan. Pakistan and Iran are not effective bases for terrorism against West. Iraq is a weak base of terrorism against West. Stop travel from Islamic countries to West.

Score: Improving for US.
Evaluation: Policy is trying to match means to ends.
Advocates: Almost no one.

Scenario 4a and 4b are logical and in our interest. Therefore they are scored as bigoted and racist and not possible by the MSM and Left.

Diagnosis: West is at war with Islam and won’t admit it. West is at war, demographically, with third world and won’t admit it. The mistakes in the Middle East are just more of the same as the last 50 years of 3rd world immigration. This demographic conflict is, in part, the West’s own making by its own expansion of the third world population bubble.

Senator John Warner has advocated changing Maliki and starting some withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. This is because Bush focuses on Iraq and won’t think about the rest. We have no rational policy. That leaves us in the Iraq irrationality that comes from Bush’s brain.

The following comment was posted at Raw Story and they pulled the entire thread.

August 23rd, 2007 at 11:08:09 From: Fallaci Admirer
Ground invasion
If we pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf before a missile/air strike, because of Iran’s antiship missiles, when can we go back in? If we can’t go back in, how can we supply Kuwait and Iraq? A single carrier going down is over 5000 lives. The battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200. A ground invasion of Iran at that rate would equal 2 months staying in Iraq. The time to fight wars is when its cheap.

If we do a missile strike on Iran, we have to pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf because of their antiship missiles. But then they can never go back in. We then can’t supply Iraq or even Kuwait. So we have to withdrawal completely from the Persian Gulf and abandon Kuwait and the Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi oil fields to Iran. This is actually worse than Saddam’s plan to take them.

The US is in paralysis because its in reality denial. We are in a war with Islam and the Middle East. They are at war with us. We are losing that war, primarily by immigration. We are going extinct from third world immigration as a mathematical theorem. We are unable to admit reality and so we can’t act on it.

We have allowed Pakistan to effectively extort money from us by the terrorism they have permitted since 1998 after they did their nuclear test. Pakistan had 38 billion in foreign debt on 9-11, with its interest greater than gross exports as its central banker wrote in a book. We let them extort money from us and they still are. We have to prevent Iran from getting nukes and denuke Pakistan.

Pakistan treats us with contempt because we have troops in Afghanistan but no ground supply route. The only way to get one is to invade Iran and position our forces on the border of Pakistan. Then we can, with India, surround and blockade Pakistan.

Instead, we are allowing pipeline deals through Pakistan to India that will further undermine our bargaining power. We allow arranged marriages from Pakistan and Afghanistan to people in the US as family reunification. We allow free movement to some terrorists from the Middle East to the West. We allow them on planes. We did so half-knowingly, in part, before 9-11.

We are fools. We deny reality. We deny our own biology. We think we can conquer death and the physical world by machines and know-how. Our entire lives have become a denial of reality. That is why our policies make no sense.

=

Senator Barack Obama advocates, in effect, our having a monthly casualty rate in Afghanistan pumped up by a nuclear Iran and nuclear Pakistan. This is now the consensus choice of the MSM and US establishment. They support continued appeasement and tribute to Pakistan. They support continued free access to the West by the Muslim world. They support our demographic suicide by immigration, and that’s a mathematical theorem, published in genetics journals.

See the Population Genetics, Wright Island Model, One Way Migration, and the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem.

== Senator Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton advocates something close to what Barack Obama advocates. She, like Obama, voted for the Bush Kennedy, McCain amnesty.

Senator John McCain is almost out of the race, because he advocated the same irrational mix Bush did, immigration and war. Obama and Clinton advocate that irrational mix as well. Almost every candidate does, except Tom Tancredo and a few others. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are antiwar, so they don’t advocate the full mix. Duncan Hunter is close to Tom Tancredo.

All major candidates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudi Giuliani, Fred Thompson advocate war with at least one Muslim land, appeasement of the others, and allowing the Muslim lands to colonize us by immigration and for their young men here to kill us here.

Reality catches up with presidents, as Bush’s presidency shows. Advocating the irrational makes no sense. Now its in the open that both parties and all major candidates and the MSM are advocating inconsistent irrational policies guaranteed to fail.

The job is for the people to point this out in detail, in writing, on talk radio, in letters, faxes, phone calls, town meetings and other contacts with Congress, the executive, the MSM, etc.

We as voters have to know the facts, numbers, history, theory, etc. better than those we vote for, and then explain to them that their wrong statements are wrong and they aren’t good enough. We have to explain that to the MSM. It takes a village to teach our politicians, MSM, profs, etc. common sense, and rational decision making under uncertainty and under biology. These are things the MSM and elites would rather have us die from than be forced to admit they don’t know how to do it or are too lazy to.

We have to learn the numbers, history, facts, theory, etc. We have to put it together on the internet and elsewhere. We then have to force it down the throat of the MSM, Congress, President, and other elites including Wall Street.

==Iran and Pakistan are our Front line enemies.

We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in insurgencies funded and supported by Iran and Pakistan. Al Qaeda doesn’t come from the sky. They are supplied out of Pakistan and other insurgents are supported out of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

We can’t win insurgencies in the back countries of Iraq and Afghanistan while the frontline countries of Iran and Pakistan supply the insurgents and block us from effective action. We need to do a ground invasion now of Iran while its non-nuclear. Then we isolate Pakistan by surrounding it and blockading it.

Pakistan is not strong economically or financially. Pakistan without foreign aid or assistance or trade is not viable as the political entity it is. It will have to negotiate or face break up. We have to insist on our own removal and our own inspections of nuclear weapons.

As a surrounded and isolated country, Pakistan will not be able to maintain or develop its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons decay, so will Pakistan’s. They will wilt, if we have the will to surround them and isolate them physically. That would also mean no arranged marriages from Pakistan to the West as part of family reunification.
==Appendix

August 23rd, 2007 at 11:08:09 From: Fallaci Admirer

Ground invasion
If we pull our ships out of the Persian Gulf before a missile/air strike, because of Iran’s antiship missiles, when can we go back in? If we can’t go back in, how can we supply Kuwait and Iraq? A single carrier going down is over 5000 lives. The battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200. A ground invasion of Iran at that rate would equal 2 months staying in Iraq. The time to fight wars is when its cheap.

Thread now gone:

http://www.rawstory.com/comments/36593.html

This was about John Bolton’s call for attacking Iran.

Ground Invasion of Iran Cuts the Gordian Knot of Retaliation

February 3, 2007

We have to surge our troops if we do a missile strike in case
Iran retaliates and we need a ground invasion. So when does Iran retaliate? After we pull our troops out. So when can we pull our troops out? Never.

So we have to surge to deal with retaliation from our strike,
but we can’t pull the troops out because the retaliation comes when they leave.

Same applies with military and civilian ships in the Persian
Gulf. They have to be pulled out until the risk of retaliation
is over. But the retaliation doesn’t happen until they come
back in the Gulf.

Its Catch-22 Iranian style. The way you cut this Gordian Knot is a ground invasion.

re Thomas Holsinger on “The Case for Invading Iran”

November 22, 2006

The Case for Invading Iran

by Guest Author at January 19, 2006 1:24 PM

by Thomas Holsinger

Winds of Change

This is brilliant analysis of why we should invade Iran now. The comments for and against an invasion of Iran both show why we need to invade Iran now.

The comments against Iran invasion now or ever show why you don’t have time in war. After 9-11, Bush thought he had time. When you have the advantage, thinking you have time is your greatest enemy. You never have time in war. Its like the tortoise and the hare.

After 9-11, we needed to proceed at 2 to 3 countries per year. That included all those involved against us in 9-11, before 9-11, and afterwards. Those who have made war on Israel, India, etc. are guilty enough. That includes Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. We don’t need to wait for proof they attacked us or for them to attack us.

Bush didn’t want to cancel his tax cuts and increase the military. His father lost in 1992 after breaking his 1988 no new tax pledge. A speech writer put in a speech, “read my lips, no new taxes.” That speech writer, Peggy Noonan, has caused the victory of Political Islam. The West lost its best chance after 9-11 for a complete sweep of the Middle East and Pakistan.

We should have called in our NATO allies and said this is an attack on the US, you have to join. We should have increased the military by 2 million or more. In WWII, we won in 3 1/2 years from Pearl Harbor and had well over 10 million under arms with less than half the population.

In war, you have to win quick if you can. Not to do so is to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” That is what Bush did, because of a line in a speech in 1988.

The fault dear people is in ourselves, not in our leaders if we allow Iran to go nuclear. It is our civilization that is being destroyed. It is our defeat that is being snatched from the jaws of victory. We must speak up and demand victory now. We must demand it over all those who are against us, not just the two most remote countries.

In WWII we island hopped to the main enemy homelands, Japan and Germany. We invaded North Africa in 1942. We didn’t stop and nation build it. We went on to Germany as fast as we can.

Our Secretary of State didn’t say, you broke it you own it. That is leftist third world propaganda thinking. The US invaded North Africa in 1942. When did US troops leave North Africa? Its so unimportant, no one knows. That’s how important it was to stop and nation build Iraq and Afghanistan.

We needed to finish this war in 2002 and 2003. That includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Syria.

We think from the bottom up, 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan, not the top down. Junior officers from Vietnam think at the village level. They think about tiger cages, prison snafus and abuses, booby traps on trails, disputes about medals, and the rest of the trivia.

We were attacked in 1979, in 1993 at WTC, in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, and the years since. That is funded and supplied out of the homelands listed above, above all Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. They are at war with us. Going to the UN was a mistake in 2002. We need to achieve victory now. We can still add 2 million to the military and win it all in 2 years.

This is a war for our survival. Now is the time a military victory is possible. The best victories are military victories. They are at war to destroy us. They started in 622 AD. Their ideology is designed for the specific purpose of world conquest and occupation. We have to listen to them, not to PC nonsense. The time to fight wars is when we lose 200 battle phase deaths.

Junior officers in WWI learned the wrong lesson, don’t fight wars when you win at low cost. They could have stopped Hitler for 20,000 lives in 1933. Instead they lost 50 to 150 million starting 6 years later.

Junior officers from Vietnam have the same wrong lesson. Their thinking is at the level of the individual house, hut, and village. They have no concept of an enemy that desires world domination. That is our enemy today.

Junior officers from WWI couldn’t believe Hitler meant it when he said he wanted world domination. The same applies to our Vietnam era junior officers. The enemy said in 622 AD they wanted that and have repeated it over and over. Time to finish this off in the next 2 years.

See also

The Atlantic Monthly | December 2004

“Will Iran Be Next?”

“Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results”

by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

This article is opinion, hypotheses and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

” U.S. Officials: Iraqi Security Could Be Ready in 12-18 Months”

October 24, 2006

“Ambassador Says Iraqi Political Leaders ‘Must Step Up'”

By Debbi Wilgoren and Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 11:18 AM

“Top U.S. officials in Iraq today predicted that Iraqi security forces could be largely self-sufficient within 12 to 18 months and said the Iraqi government is building a timetable for disarming militias, quieting insurgents and solving ongoing struggles for economic and political power.”

WaPo Comments.

Kissinger got out another old memo, “Light at the end of the Tunnel Memo”? Kissinger is spending time at the White House, teaching Bush old tricks. Those old Kissinger memos are like salted peanuts at the White House. Too bad Kissinger doesn’t tell Bush to just roll over Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia while it only costs us 200 killed in Battle Phase deaths v. 50,000 killed in Vietnam. Instead, Bush and Kissinger sit around like an SNL skit about the Oval Office, asking how can we waste America’s chance to win the big war by getting bogged down in fighting Afghanistan and Iraq while letting Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia fund the wars against while we could win easy.

Kissinger should be telling Bush he’s fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong place. When you lose 200 killed in the battle phase, you should take the war to the source right away. We called it Island Hopping in WWII in the Pacific. We were going for Japan and Germany, not trying to get bogged down in peripheral places for ever.

While Kissinger way busy losing Vietnam he was also busy giving Russia more throw weight and big missiles in SALT I. Kissinger was also letting US grad schools be taken over by foreign grad students and has never spoke out about our know-how being given away. That’s why China is so powerful now and getting more so.

A Q Khan got his Ph.D. in the 1970’s in Belgium and stole centrifuge technology from a job there. We have been giving away our technology and know how and our people can’t get jobs. Kissinger is part of that give away. Bush is doing that now.

===2nd Comment

jhindson | Oct 24, 2006 12:59:23 PM quote The war has gone on longer than WWII and all the trends are bad. end quote.

WWII was over quickly because FDR decided to invade the homelands of what attacked us, Japan and Germany as fast as possible, and then he did it.

Bush decided to get bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of going after Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE.

When you don’t go to the source, you can’t win. They understood that in WWII.

Bush just doesn’t get it. If FDR could have knocked over a country at 200 killed in battle phase, he wouldn’t have sat down and occupied the most peripheal points he could find. But Bush does and Kissinger eggs him on.

== Comment

The US had 10 million men under arms by the end of WWII with a much smaller population.  In the last 2 years of the Bush administration, we could restore our army to the 1991 level, and invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.  We could win in 2 years.  That’s what they did in WWII.  They were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and they just won.  You don’t need the permission of Blair or the UN after you are attacked.  You can just go win.  We can win in the next 2 years, or we can sit and bleed occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.  Only someone brain dead would choose to lose when they could win after they were attacked.  Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, and North Korea are tied to enough things over the last 30 years that we have evidence enough.  At this point in history, military force can win.  At the right points in history, armies have changed history and wars have changed history.  We can win now or sit back, bleed at the peripheries and let immigration defeat us.  Victory at all costs.  Just win baby.  Americans want a leader who will invade the homelands of the countries that attacked us not sit and bleed like a fool and invent stupid phrases like stay the course.  Did FDR say stay the course? No, he said Unconditional Surrender.  By the farthest point from Berlin and Tokyo? No.  He took the war to the homelands of what attacked us.  He didn’t call Fascism the religion of peace.  He didn’t set up Fascist Republics in countries he invaded.  He didn’t uphold Fascist Law and Courts, he abolished them, sent the judges packing and imposed our values.  That was popular with our people.  If you have the American people behind you, that’s all you need to win right now.  Soon, it will be too late.

We can win it all, now.  Just arm up and do it.  We don’t need to go to the UN or sit around holding Blair’s hand.  We don’t need to waste time with Europe or China talking to our enemies telling them to hold out.  We don’t have to listen to Europe, China and Russia say don’t fight now when you lose 200 killed per war, wait until its 50,000 or 500,000 in a nuclear war.  Just win now.  Roll over the whole expanded axis, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and North Korea.  Just do it.

This article is hypothesis, speculation and opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: