Report: Pentagon Has 3-Day Plan to Knock Out Iran's Military

[Amelia]

Report: Pentagon Has 3-Day Plan to Knock Out Iran's Military

Sunday , September 02, 2007

The London Times

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert in Sunday’s edition in the Times of London.

Click here to read the full story from the Times of London.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear program and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

[John317]

Of course. It's either us or Israel, and no one wants Israel to have to do it. If Israel does it, it would almost certainly mean war through the mideast. But if the US doesn't do it, there is no question but that Israel would feel compelled to do it.

The point is that the West simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'd be willing to bet that Iran will have its nuclear facitilies demolished before Bush leaves office, because he doesn't want the next president to have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran. And he certainly doesn't want history to record that he was the American president who allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

[Guest charis]

I do not understand why people think they need to know their country's or an allied country's military strategy. Why don't we just invent another congressional seat and one in the pentagon for Iranians, Iraqis, etc. That way they can be in on the tactical plans from the get-go.

[Dr. Shane]

It may be a way to strong arm Iran into more cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think a bit differently. I think Bush may well try to delay Iran's development so the next President can make the decision whether to use military action against Iran or not.

[lazarus]

I would be surprised if Bush did NOT order an attack on Iraq. I don't think there isn't much left to lose in this presidency. The Bush admin I feel has been wrong on many of the major issues in the last six years.

Its all or nothing right now. I think Bush will go for all. Its will be disasterous and Iran will get Nukes. Don't forget about Russia. Its in their interest that Iran be a counterpoint to Israel. I have a lot of sypathy with that idea.

[jasd]

>>I don't think there isn't much left to lose in this presidency.<<

Thank goodness that’s a subjective statement (speaking of “losing” something in a Presidency..., I’m put to mind a President who deposited a stain upon the bodice of a blue dress whilst in the office of the POTUS).

>>The Bush admin I feel has been wrong on many of the major issues in the last six years.<<

As, I am sure, you, I, ...everyone else. The question obtaining would be one of perspective.

>>Its all or nothing right now.<<

That, it appears, would be the case: the questioning obtains – why? might it have not come to this “all or nothing” – if America had not had to suffer the insipience of the seditious Left these past years – whilst we are at war?

>>I think Bush will go for all.<<

It appears he might. The questioning obtaining would be: can we do without Mideast Oil? can we afford Petrodollars to float? can we afford to exchange dollars for Euros that we might purchase Mideast oil? can we afford to be whiplashed by the likes and dislikes of the Islam world? What if Mexico aligned with Venezuela and Iran in an exchange for influence in American politics? Etc.

We’ve expended beaucoup bucks anteing for a seat at the geographical center of the 21st century: CAN WE AFFORD to cash in our chips – and become a fourth-world nation – paying down on those multiple trillion$ of dollar$ that the world has accepted as the full faith and credit of the American people? (how does one suppose the Court at Hague decides – when our creditors bring suit?)

Whether we like it or not – Iraq is about ENERGY! and its availability (at a manageable cost), or lack thereof – to our society; regardless, the whimsy of liberal inclinations and ‘wellness’ ideas.

>>Its will be disasterous and Iran will get Nukes.<<

Best intelligence is that Iran already has Nukes: it is the delivery platform that is being arranged. (remember, chess was invented in Persia) And yes,

it will be disastrous for America – and for everyone else.

>>Don't forget about Russia. Its in their interest that Iran be a counterpoint to Israel. I have a lot of sypathy with that idea.<<

It behooves all Bible students to invest in a study of 20th century Russia: there may not exist such a divide between the Soviet and State of Israel -- than seems to be popular belief. Anyway,

the doubt that shadows the “rumour” that Dubya will invade Iran – is the $100,000,000,000 oil deal inked between China and Iran. For us to go to war with Iran is to war against the interests of China’s energy – unless a mutual accommodation is first agreed upon with China – such as, (amongst other things) giving it control over the I-35 corridor connecting Mexico and Canada – and, intersecting America; or, cutting loose Taiwan; or...

So, why not give them more? we’ve already given them control over

both ends of the Panama Canal. So, why not more? they already

hold much of the paper in America’s housing market. So, why not? ...

etc.

Seems that Mao’s Long March may finally succeed in arriving at The Golden Mountain.

Anyway, bruited...

that before November ’08 America will experience the necessary terrorist incident that will kick America into the automatic default position of MARTIAL LAW. What chance then

of a change in the Executive Branch? What chance then

of a functioning Congress (not to say that there is one now)?

Federal, State, and Local Emergency Detention Plans: read CAMPS!

Arbeit Macht Frei! [/Oy!]

[lazarus]

Thank goodness that’s a subjective statement (speaking of “losing” something in a Presidency..., I’m put to mind a President who deposited a stain upon the bodice of a blue dress whilst in the office of the POTUS).

My guess is that history will judge the BLOOD stains of the Bush presidency a bit more harshly.

Quote:

if America had not had to suffer the insipience of the seditious Left these past years – whilst we are at war?

Aw, come on....LOL

Quote:

Whether we like it or not – Iraq is about ENERGY! and its availability (at a manageable cost), or lack thereof –

Agreed! Its always been about oil....foreign policy i the Mid-east that is.

Quote:

Best intelligence is that Iran already has Nukes: it is the delivery platform that is being arranged.

Agreed! Not that I have any special sources to speak of, though!

Quote:

that before November ’08 America will experience the necessary terrorist incident that will kick America into the automatic default position of MARTIAL LAW. What chance then

of a change in the Executive Branch? What chance then

of a functioning Congress (not to say that there is one now)?

Federal, State, and Local Emergency Detention Plans: read CAMPS!

Oh my, what websites have u been reading!!!!

[Bravus]

As gone through in excruciating detail here before, Iran's current nuclear program has not yield nukes, is not about to yield nukes (several years out, minimum, if they accelerated massively) and is not intended to yield nukes. Whether they might have picked up a few floating around in Eastern Europe is another question.

I am pretty confident that Bush will attack Iran, because throughout the entire presidency if there's been a choice he has always reliably taken the wrong one.

And jasd, love you like a brother, but that &*$%^# about the 'seditious left' is the biggest... ah forget it, too angry to write. The left has been pathetically inadequate in restraining the folly, and continues to be, so blaming the consequences of the folly on the left is... there are simply no words.

[D. Allan]

I just hope we can survive the next 16 months until we get someone competent in the oval office. :(

[D. Allan]

I have an idea. Why not send Mr. Bush a cap with the letters WWKD embroidered above the visor? :)

[jasd]

>>My guess is that history will judge the BLOOD stains of the Bush presidency a bit more harshly.<<

Many Presidents, many BLOOD stains: goes to honor and the condition of man. That demarcates from the simple tawdriness I referenced.

>>Aw, come on....LOL<<

No, serious. It bears repeating, “...if America had not had to suffer the insipience of the seditious Left these past years – whilst we are at war?” Lincoln sent the likes over to the enemy and arrested others.

>>Agreed! Its always been about oil....foreign policy i the Mid-east that is.<<

When it comes to my children and their posterity versus the specter of an energy-short America, I really don’t have a problem with investing in forestalling a China-Iranian hegemony in the Mideast. Of necessity, that requires blood and sacrifice. My problem with Dubya is that

Leftist politics instilled hesitance on his part from fully prosecuting a war.

>>Oh my, what websites have u been reading!!!!<<

Among the many who’ve made similar claims is – “Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.”

Camps:

/ Army Regulation 210-35, entitled " Installations: Civilian Inmate Labor Camps,” signed Feb. 14, 2005.

/ "Inmate Labor Plan" that will comply with 18 U.S.C. 4125(a), governing civilian inmate labor.

/ National Security Presidential Directive-5; and, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-20 [grants the President dictatorial powers].

Without referencing the pertinent Executive Orders giving Martial powers to a ‘Provisional’ or ‘Continuing’ Govt” – there is much more.

A beginning may be found by Googling images: concentration camps Rex 84

(One ‘camp’ in Alaska has a ‘carrying capacity’ of between two-three million inmates. The flyover photos I’ve seen – of the railroad lines are hairy-scary in dimensions)

[Amelia]

[Amelia]

[Amelia]

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I am pretty confident that Bush will attack Iran

I still seriously doubt it. Even this news break I think is just a way of turning up the heat on Iran. If Iran is still several years away from developing nukes, as it seems they are, I can't see any attack in the near future - especially an invasion. If such a thing were going to happen, I think it would have happened when Iran took the British sailors prisoner.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I just hope we can survive the next 16 months until we get someone competent in the oval office.

Well he has a undergrad degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. He was a small business man, owner of a major league baseball franchise and governor of one of the largest states in the US. His father was a congressman, head of the CIA, vice-president and president. I don't think one can get much more qualified than that.

Now one may disagree with President Bush's politics but when we start saying he is not competent, well, we just show we are either ignorant of the facts ourselves or letting our own politics compromise our judgment.

[jasd]

>>As gone through in excruciating detail here before, Iran's current nuclear program has not yield nukes, is not about to yield nukes (several years out, minimum, if they accelerated massively) and is not intended to yield nukes.<<

Well, if it has already been done in excruciating detail, what’s left to say?

>>Whether they might have picked up a few floating around in Eastern Europe is another question.<<

I won’t speculate as to the number “a few” floaters might suggest; however, should they have acquired a few floaters – all other things considered, that would seem to suggest that Iran has nukes.

>>I am pretty confident that Bush will attack Iran, because throughout the entire presidency if there's been a choice he has always reliably taken the wrong one.<<

You mean “wrong” like standing in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln?

I think that the incident typified the outré of our Leftists. Obsessed with the notion that Dubya might pick up some political capital from a “Mission Accomplished” banner behind him when he made his address – they proceeded to do what they do best, that is,

ignoring the efforts of the carrier and its crew (among other things, they set a record of 290 days deployment for nuclear-powered carriers) they denigrated the crew's sacrifice by trashing the POTUS and making the banner his rather than theirs. Morlocks.

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," --Cmdr. Conrad Chun

Yes, admittedly, the White House had a hand in its manufacture. Like, wow! “that duplicitous Dubya!”

>>And jasd, love you like a brother, but that &*$%^# about the 'seditious left' is the biggest... ah forget it, too angry to write.<<

I write to elicit reaction, sometimes [/smiling] and sometimes, I mean it.

>>The left has been pathetically inadequate in restraining the folly, and continues to be, so blaming the consequences of the folly on the left is... there are simply no words.<<

The Congressional Left demanded the chance to go on record with their votes as favoring Dubya’s action vis-à-vis Iraq. They gave him Carte Blanche with an almost unanimous vote. Having become complicit,

they, in the least, could have contributed to our war effort without the subsequent and incessant whining and murmuring and yes, incipience; and yes, sedition. That’s from the shoulder – as honest as I can make it considering that I hold you in the greatest esteem.

We simply differ. If the Left did not want to ‘kill and break things’ they should not have insisted on Dubya ‘coming up tah the Hill’ to get Congressional approval.

I blame the Left because it is incontrovertible that their injection of politics into an America at War is, without excuse. They have crippled a President the people reelected to continue prosecuting a war that – Democracy be dinked – is vital to our national interests. Despicable.

[jasd]

Re: BUSH CRIME FAMILY FLOW CHART

One begins to see that it will be Conglomerates, which will shortly be governing supra-governments; that is, they even now supercede govts legitimately established or otherwise. I suspect that when

the Bible makes the distinction between ‘nations arising from the sea' and ‘kings of the earth’ – it addresses the rule by conglomerates typified by their submission to Admiralty Law, that is, the law of the sea (which applies to corporations) rather than national charters, dictators, constitutions, or other.

The case that the USof A is already, legally, under Martial Law seems to be well-founded.

(Disabuse me should I err as I am extemporizing)

[Neil D]

I have an idea. Why not send Mr. Bush a cap with the letters WWKD embroidered above the visor?

What would Kissinger do?????

[lazarus]

Quote:

I just hope we can survive the next 16 months until we get someone competent in the oval office.

Now one may disagree with President Bush's politics but when we start saying he is not competent, well, we just show we are either ignorant of the facts ourselves or letting our own politics compromise our judgment.

You don't evaluate an employees' performace based on his resume you judge it based on what he has done since he started working for you.

The real question to ask is in which area of his Presidential responsibility has he suceeded in being competent?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Well he has a undergrad degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. He was a small business man, owner of a major league baseball franchise and governor of one of the largest states in the US. His father was a congressman, head of the CIA, vice-president and president. I don't think one can get much more qualified than that.

doubious qualifications.

His father is not a qualification.

Competence not qualifications is needed!

[D. Allan]

Quote:

What would Kissinger do?????

NO!!!

WWKD = What Would Kerry Do?

[Stan]

The legacy...

"Attacking Iraq was a wise event compared to what GWB did with Iran" - CNN Dec 2010

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The real question to ask is in which area of his Presidential responsibility has he succeeded in being competent?

Those not wanting to see good will always be blinded to it.

The US has not been attacked against since 9/11. We know it isn't because there haven't been attempts. However those that dislike the President are unlikely to even grudgingly concede he has protected the country for six years now.

The economy has made an incredible recovery. The economy officially started in recession the first quarter of 2001, just as Bush was taking office. He inherited a slowing economy which was caused by the high-tech sector's bubble popping. The attacks in September of the same year were a tremendous hit to an already weak economy. Yet Bush managed to bring the economy back strong enough to even thrive amid high energy prices.

Home ownership among minorities is on the increase in no small part to the Bush Administration.

So there are three just off the top of my head. I could come up with a much longer list given time. The bigger point is that a person's critics (Bush or anyone else) will never see their good points because they are not looking.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

His father is not a qualification.

Of course he is! How could we possibly believe otherwise?

The reason so many men follow in their father's footsteps is because that is where they have always walked. Regardless if we are talking about a mechanic, painter, butcher, salesman, doctor or politician, a man who follows in the same career as his father is going to draw on his father's experience and in some way be an extension of his father. Ever since GW was a young lad he has been in the company of some of the nation's greatest political minds - his father being one of them, President Reagan being another. How could that not have any bearing on his qualifications?

While his last name may well have gotten him into Harvard and Yale, it did not get him out. One of the problems with affirmative action is that it allows students into schools that don't test high enough and they just end up dropping out. We, GW didn't drop out but graduated from both ivy league schools.

President Bush is not a good speaker. However he is a bright man and has integrity. After his resignation, Karl Rove was asked how the President can keep going amid all the personal attacks and low poll numbers he suffers. Karl said it doesn't matter to him. President Bush does what he believes is right and is not swayed by public opinion of him. That is a rock, my friends. Agree or disagree, I can respect a man like that. The only one he is concerned about answering to, and he has said this himself, is his Maker.