Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

Who are we going to send, the Coast Guard?

I hear the Boy Scouts are at a loose end at the moment...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 16th, 2006
Chickenhawks :)
Permalink Colm 
January 16th, 2006
The older I get the more I'm of the opinion that politicians shouldn't be allowed anything sharper than a crayon. Watching competing groups of nutters armed to the teeth and firmly believing that (a) the end of the world is nigh and (b) that's a good thing, doesn't fill me with confidence.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 16th, 2006
Salvation Army
January 16th, 2006
The Air Force and Navy are basically just sitting around right now. Considering those two have some of our most powerful weapons, we could have a pretty severe "strike" on Iran to disrupt nuclear capabilities, if thats all we were after.
Permalink Phil 
January 16th, 2006
The Iranians feel they can get away with thumbing their nose at the UN at the moment for three reasons:
1) The US is tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq
2) Our military, both men and machines, are worn out from fighting in #1 above.
3) There's no one else with the military and/or motivation to take them on.

We'd have to go through a 5 year period of re-arming before we'd be ready to invade.

The Israelis have their own leadership problems, with Sharon's stroke and all. Plus, while they're like a Terrier, willing to take on dogs much bigger than they are, Iran is a *much* bigger dog, and there's the little issue of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq being in the way of an attack.

The US would object strongly if Russia were to attack through one of the *stan republics.
Permalink example 
January 16th, 2006
While the macho dick beaters like to fantasize about "striking" Iranian facilities (after all Rumsfeld claims he knows where they all are, just like he knew where all the WMD facilities in Iraq were), I'd like them to take a moment to think what the price of gas will be when Iran uses all those Chinese made anti-shipping missiles (and zodiac speedboats) to make the Persian Gulf a "supertanker-free-zone."
Permalink Peter 
January 16th, 2006
...and legally mines Shatt al Arab.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 16th, 2006
I think all this talking of attacking Iran is would give Iran the moral right to develop nuclear arms.

Just this morning, all over the BBC news: Iran is destabelizing the region by going after nuclear arms.

I think it would stabelize the region considerably when Iran had a nuclear weapon, because the US would stop thinking of attacking.

There have never been more serious peacetalks between India and Pakistan than now, that they both have nuclear capability.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 16th, 2006
bunker buster contained nuclear strike.

I betcha.

Its the only possible option if they really feel they have to make the attack.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 16th, 2006
"Plus, while they're like a Terrier, willing to take on dogs much bigger than they are, Iran is a *much* bigger dog, and there's the little issue of Syria, Jordan, and Iraq being in the way of an attack."

Well, they took on Egypt, which is no small country (and won), plus neither Syria nor Jordan is likely to have the ability to intercept a tactical strike fighter on its way to the outskirts of Tehran...

"The US would object strongly if Russia were to attack through one of the *stan republics."

Dude... leaving aside the fact that the Russian military is in no condition to attack San Marino at this point, who do you think is selling Iran the technology? :)

JHC, for a resident of quite possibly the most peace-loving country in the First World, you have way too much bloodlust.
Permalink Flasher T 
January 17th, 2006
>bunker buster contained nuclear strike.
You'll need to use about 300 of them. And you better pray that you got all the sites. You'll also need to figure a way for the rest of the world to survive without oil from the Persian Gulf for 3 to 4 years. Quick question: just how *high* will oil prices go when Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE, Iraqi and Iranian oil becomes unavailable due to blockade? $1000/barrel? Higher? Because that is how long it would take to build pipelines across Jordan/Syria and Saudi so that there'd be Mediterranean/Red Sea oil terminals.

We *used* to have people working on WMD counter-proliferation, but the current administration deliberately and intentionally burned them to get back at political opponents.

Brewster Jennings was one such company. They'd crawl around in places like Iran and Iraq looking for WMD support facilities. They'd work at getting export licenses cancelled, and shipments stopped of WMD materials. But because the administration decided to blow Plame and the company she worked for (Brewster Jennings) just to get back at Wilson for uncovering the yellowcake forgeries, any intelligence agency who wasn't asleep would have looked at every place she went, every person she talked with, every place that everyone else at that company went and talked with. They'd look at the facilities that Plame, et al, knew about, and either make them disappear or turn them into honeypots to catch spies. And the places that Plame, et al, didn't know about? Make more of those places. Also, those intelligence agencies who weren't asleep would look at the history of Brewster Jennings, and start looking for every other company with that similar profile, because those companies would also be CIA cover-companies for NOCs.

So, a lot of those precious bunker busters would bust empty buildings. Because scoring political points was more important to rove/bush/libby than America.

The Iranians have deliberately removed and destroyed facilities that the IAEA want to inspect. In one case, between the time the IAEA asked to inspect a site, and they were finally allowed in, the building had been bulldozed flat, and the top 6-8 inches of soil had been scraped off and removed. I can't find a link to the pdf of the powerpoint presentation that went around last fall, maybe I can find it at home.


The last time that Iranian oil production went offline (in 1979), the world price of oil *only* doubled. There was a lot of excess capacity in the oil industry, back then. That was when Saudi Arabia was able and willing to pump more oil to make up for the fact that Iran exports 5% of the world's supply of oil. Saudi's Ghawar oil field (which is about half of Saudi's oil production) has had so much water injected, that 30% of what comes out of the ground is water. Iran exports 2/3 of the oil and natural gas they produce (a lot goes to electricity production), and some industry analysts claim that if Iran's internal growth doesn't change, by 2009/2010, Iran won't be an oil *exporter* any more: they'll be burning, internally, every drop they pump. Iran might only have 15-25 years of uranium deposits, but with their own growth, it becomes a matter of: build nuclear power plants so we can sell oil, or burn the oil ourselves for power. Nuclear power plants look real economical when oil is $150-300 per barrel.
Permalink Peter 
January 17th, 2006
"JHC, for a resident of quite possibly the most peace-loving country in the First World, you have way too much bloodlust."

?? Im not saying its a good idea. in fact I would be appalled.

Im just saying that if the bush administration insists on a military strike against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities, its the only possible way to do it short of a full scale invasion.

remember this post.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 17th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics