Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

h1

Spotted: Another Brobdingnagian Factcheckathon

February 22, 2008

I got the feeling that the rightosphere pulled another all-nighter, as their blogs are all abuzz over an anecdote that Obama used in last night’s Democratic debate. 

First, the anecdote:

“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.  And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees.  They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

Then came the Brobdingnagian factcheckathon (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE.)  These bloggers called BS, because, you know, prior to last night’s debate there was no evidence whatsoever that the Iraq adventure diverted resources from the mission in Afghanistan.  It’s not like the Iraq Study Group said exactly that or anything.

So, what came all this hysteria?  Well, some journalist guy actually contacted the Army captain that Obama was referring to.   And what do you know?

Prior to deployment the Captain — then a Lieutenant — took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but — in ones and twos — 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

and

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most — so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Oh well, perhaps now they’ll get some sleep. 

Nah.  There’s some BS in there somewhere.  I just know it.

h1

John Bolton Delivers Another Head-Scratcher

November 22, 2007

And when I say “another”, it’s in reference to the Bolton quote I featured here in the Chamber a little while ago.

Today’s nugget is once again on the subject of Iran.  Mr. Bolton, appearing on Hardball, is chiming in on Iran’s possible reaction to an attack on their nuclear facilities (h/t NewsBusters):

JOHN BOLTON: I give the Iranians more credit than you [addressing himself to Matthews] do. I think they’re smart enough to understand that an attack against the nuclear program is not directed against them.

I’m not sure if Bolton actually believes this, or if he’s just saying whatever he thinks he needs to in order to sugarcoat his position (which, needless to say, is quite hawkish). 

It’s hard not to envision that, after an attack, the Iranian state run TV would run clip after clip of burning buildings and lifeless bodies being dragged out from under the rubble.  I’d assume that Ahmadinejad would make sure that the footage played in every TV set in the country, and probably the world.  Does Bolton really think that the Iranians are just going to sit there and collectively think “Well, they were just nuclear facilities.  They had it coming.” or something like that?  I mean, come on

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

h1

John Bolton Gets Nostalgic

September 30, 2007

boultonmup.jpgI’m picking this for quote of the week, delivered by John Bolton while discussing what should be done about the Iran situation:

“If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change … The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back,” he said.

What Bolton is referring to, of course, is this.  Nothing quite like the spooks of yesteryear, compared to the moonbats that are inhabiting the CIA these days, right?

I’m not sure why he thinks of the exercise as a dead practice though.  There’s word that Bush and Cheney at least making an effort at it in Iran currently.

And Johnnyboy, it isn’t particularly “clandestine” when you’re telling the media about it, is it? 

h1

General ChenZhen Strikes Again

September 17, 2007

I like having fun with this new nickname that fellow LGFer DesertSage gave me, and tonight I have another opportunity to pat myself on the back for another convergence of thought with a real general.  A few months ago, I posted this on the subject of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons:

Would Iran actually use nukes on Israel preemptively, considering the consequences?

It was just a question I threw out there for the lizard army, and I thought it was a legitimate one given the fact that there are many Muslims and Islamic holy sites in Israel and the surrounding area, along with the considerable onslaught and retaliation the Iranians would face from such an action.

Most of the response my comment received was based on the notion that the Iranian leadership doesn’t care because they believe in Armageddon, so this kind of deterrence means nothing to them.

Well, today, a famous retired general came out and addressed the subject: Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

“Iran is not a suicide nation,” he said. “I mean, they may have some people in charge that don’t appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon.”

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

“I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear,” he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

Now, I realize that Abizaid was talking about a threat to the U.S. and not Israel, but I think it’s safe to assume at this point that they are one in the same, especially with regards to the deterrence factor.  Anyway, I’m certainly hoping that the General and I are right on this one.  But I think this calls for another brandishing of my stars…

h1

Iranians Getting Squirrelly

July 13, 2007

I just had to put this on the blog: Squirrel Spy Ring? Thats Nuts!

Police in Iran are reported to have taken 14 squirrels into custody – because they are suspected of spying.

The rodents were found near the Iranian border allegedly equipped with eavesdropping devices.

The reports have come from the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

When asked about the confiscation of the spy squirrels, the national police chief said: “I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information.”

The IRNA said that the squirrels were kitted out by foreign intelligence services – but they were captured two weeks ago by police officers.

If the Brits really are using squirrels, it might mean that MI6’s prairie dog team has been compromised:

Details are sketchy.  There are reports that the British Badger Brigade is having more success in Basra, however. 

h1

General Lieberman Speaks (Followed By General ChenZhen)

June 12, 2007
First, from the other day:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran’s involvement in Iraq.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman said. “And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

My initial response was this (from another blog):

ChenZhen said…
    “I want to make clear I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran,” Lieberman said.

That’s the problem. Unless we’re prepared for full-scale war, I think any attack inside Iran’s borders is just plain foolish. For one, said attack probably won’t halt Iran’s involvement. In all liklihood, the attempt would backfire, even if we did destroy some training camp somewhere. They’d probably just come back at us harder, and the situation would escalate.

Nevermind the fact that this would be exactly what al Qaeda in Iraq wants us to do.

It’s a nice fix Bush has gotten us into, eh?

 ———–

DesertSage said…
Oh boy…General ChenZhen is giving us military advice.
WE.MUST.LISTEN.TO.GENERAL.CHENZHEN!
June 10, 2007 5:45 PM

I wonder if I should put some stars in my sidebar?

Sure enough, a real general weighs in:

Senator Lieberman’s saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it’s highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I urge him to stop.

generalchenzhen.gif

Update:  Excellent and related read from Ezra Klein: Let’s Get Serious  —  What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?

h1

Flag Burning 101

June 4, 2007

I happened to stumble upon this post by my pal Sisyphus over at Blogs 4 Brownback, where the notion of buring of the Iranian flag is put forth as a viable idea with regards to the Iran situation.  I left a comment in there, but it pretty much got ignored.  So, I thought I’d mention it here, just because I thought is was pretty darn funny:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers