STORM2K

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.

The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

Simply ridiculous, JIMO

Frankly I think a blockade is unliekly given that the oil price spiked today based on supply issues.

I personally think there should have been an attack when those British sailors were kidnapped.

I watch Fox News up here regularly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they said the same thing the past two summers? Seem like a seasonal story with them for some odd reason.

Our (U.S.) combat personnel are stretched to thin. Activated younger generation of National Guard troops are not re-enlisting after tours in Iraq. Recruitment of new troops for full time active duty is struggling. There is a growing anti-war sentiment stateside. Alot of elected hawks are showing signs of becoming doves. To many other hot spots around the world that require attention. No chance (at this time) of bringing back the draft. Hell, we're even running short on bullets.

Worst of all UCMJ is prosecuting combatants that engage in urban guerilla warfare. Tie one arm behind my back and send me to a strange land where the enemy wants to cut my head off and post it on the internet.

Unless Iran openly displays an act of war....we're going to let those 3000 centrifuges to spin.

Get used to it......they are coming.

Powerful people in the administration want this to happen, however, unfortunately and they have a way of getting their way. Analyses have been done by Seymour Hersh, etc., that these senior administration officials have an almost messianic view that they need to save the world from the scourges of Iranian nuclear weapons before January 20, 2009.

Also, I'm sure we'll be told that this can easily be done with minimal manpower and minimal risk ala Iraq. We all know how that turned out.

Dionne, your analysis was amazing and spot on thanks but this administration may not care.

The U.S. doesn't have the troops to attack Iran..unless we talk about the "D" word.

Dionne wrote:Worst of all UCMJ is prosecuting combatants that engage in urban guerilla warfare.

What the...??

You got a source for that?

RL3AO wrote:The U.S. doesn't have the troops to attack Iran..unless we talk about the "D" word.

I was just about to say...

No way, absolutely will not happen. These rumors come up every few months... I'm still waiting for that attack on Good Friday.

Fixed news... I'm sorry Fox Noise.... Sorry Fox News is the Accuweather of the news world. I don't give this even a thought.

Don't believe me? Read that ridiculous article ripping the NHC after Dean.

Why anyone would listen to faux pa--news...

Last two posts echo my thoughts on this. They report this often, doesn't seem to be any indication it's reality this time, either.

H733Driver wrote:

Dionne wrote:Worst of all UCMJ is prosecuting combatants that engage in urban guerilla warfare.

What the...??

You got a source for that?

Why would a source be necessary? It's not a secret. Our Infantry soldiers have not been allowed to fight with whatever means necessary since Vietnam. It's called rules of engagement. Which is BS. It's war. Fight or die. If they even look at you funny....shoot them.

Dionne wrote:

H733Driver wrote:

Dionne wrote:Worst of all UCMJ is prosecuting combatants that engage in urban guerilla warfare.

What the...??

You got a source for that?

Why would a source be necessary? It's not a secret. Our Infantry soldiers have not been allowed to fight with whatever means necessary since Vietnam. It's called rules of engagement. Which is BS. It's war. Fight or die. If they even look at you funny....shoot them.

And if an occupying foreign force were in your home town and shot your brother or sister or child because they "looked at them funny" - what would you do?

I imagine you might do what I would - take up arms against them "with whatever means necessary."

Dionne wrote: Hell, we're even running short on bullets.

You don't even know how right you are about that. Because of BRAC 05, they are closing down munition plants left and right. It appears that production is not able to keep up with demand. Do I know this for a fact, yes.

Opal storm wrote:

RL3AO wrote:The U.S. doesn't have the troops to attack Iran..unless we talk about the "D" word.

I was just about to say...

No ground troops... No "d" word...The report is a possible plans beind drawed up on a 2-3 day bombing camphaine using some 500 aircraft in a effort to weaking them militarily as well as to set them back in there nuc ambitions...Long time coming really after all Iran is sending weapons and terroist into Iraq to blow us up...Some payback is long time coming...

Chacor wrote:Why anyone would listen to faux pa--news...

Maybe because it has the highest ratings?

feederband wrote:

Opal storm wrote:

RL3AO wrote:The U.S. doesn't have the troops to attack Iran..unless we talk about the "D" word.

I was just about to say...

No ground troops... No "d" word...The report is a possible plans beind drawed up on a 2-3 day bombing camphaine using some 500 aircraft in a effort to weaking them militarily as well as to set them back in there nuc ambitions...Long time coming really after all Iran is sending weapons and terroist into Iraq to blow us up...Some payback is long time coming...

And if we do that, what happens to the 160,000 troops and however many contractors who are absolutely dependent on a terribly vulnerable 1200 mile supply-line through Shiite controlled (and Iran allied) southern Iraq? Iran is quite probably supplying some of the weapons which wind up being used against us in Iraq (although in a country awash in armament, I suspect as much if not more weapons used against us came from us - Gen. Petraeus has admitted he can't account for huge quantities of weapons we've supplied) but they haven't even remotely flexed the power they have in place.

Attacking Iran in our current posture would be suicidal insanity.

x-y-no wrote:Iran is quite probably supplying some of the weapons which wind up being used against us in Iraq .

That would all I would need to bomb them...Its really a lose lose all the way around...What if we were to just let them do what they want as building nucs? Maybe in a couple of years they could just lob them at us in Iraq...We will still be there...

I'm sure they would lob them Israel ..,In which I could care less but would cause a even bigger conflict...