Captain's Quarters -

Let France attack Iran.

Don't underestimate them. Sarkozy is a small guy... and small French guys have kicked around most of Europe with ease. At least, he and his government have the guts to say something other than the normal leftist EU propaganda.

France as the surrender nation has now officially been replaced by Germany. Pity most of you people can't watch German tv, you'd be scared and shocked.

Iran's list of allies grows, unlike Iraq which had none. This continued appetite for saber rattling against Iran seems short sighted. Antagonizing for war against a small country with not significant military capabilities is one thing. Putting ourselves on the opposite side of a potential shooting match with Russia and China looking across from the other side is another matter entirely.

The "projection of power" crew around here really needs a bit more of a reality check and fewer John Wayne, Flying Leatherneck reruns.

Ed:

This seems highly unplausible:

This comes as reports have Germany looking for a way out of the sanctions regime. After German technology was discovered at the Bushehr nuclear plant in violations of the UN-based sanctions -- apparently routed through Russia -- Angela Merkel's government has informed the US that it cannot sustain the sanctions because of the economic damage it does to Germany.

Fox News recently ran an articke to that effect, but it seemed prety outlandish overall. Do you you have any other source than Fox?

Consider this: The German economy is strengthening again, and annual German exports are close to 800
billion Euros. Those to Iran are a drop in the bucket compared to that. Do you really think Merkel would want to antagonize Bush over this, after having worked hard at repairing German-American relations?

Capt'
I think actions will speak louder than words. Words are cheap and the politicians of today throw words around easily.

If France truly wants to check Iran on this issue, I would say French support of tougher sanctions and boycotts would be a start. To date track record of modern French policy has undermined the words coming from Sarkozys lips.
Saber rattling with words? When I see the Carrier group off the straits and the Legion sitting in the transports, I'll take Sarkozy seriously.

As a side note, France has one of the largest Muslim communities in the EU. Does the French leadership think they will side with France? I would say NO.

TAKEKAZE
Lived off and on in Germany, the media is way out in left field. Shocked, No, Scared for the people whom take the garbage at face value, Yes.

Chus
Herkeng

When the First Pres Bush sent me to the first Gulf War “Desert Shield/Storm”, I was not a happy camper. Not because I didn’t think stability in the ME was in our National Interest, but because I didn’t trust the government to carry through to the bitter end. I figured there was an even chance the government would abandon the troops the first time the war didn’t go as planned. This trepidation was heightened when the MSM published those stories about the “shortages” of bodybags.

Fortunately, Desert Storm was a relative cake walk. One could argue (as I did at the time) that the mission SHOULD have been carried all the way through to regime change…but at least the troops were brought home before they were called baby killers etc. and before they could be abandoned in the field.

A different Bush has us in Iraq now (doing what should have been done after Desert Storm)…and our government is on abandoning the troops. The Repubs have done a piss poor job of keeping the home front “on board” with their war. I expected the Dhimmicrats to abandon us (even though they too voted for the deal)…I didn’t figure so many Republicans would be willing abandon us so quickly as well.

Now you Repubs are talking about starting ANOTHER war? Are you going to do a better job getting the “American people” on board with this one? How are you going to manage that when you can barely keep 50% of the people interested in what happens to Iraq? I’m not asking the “Troofers” (I have a feeling I know what they’ll babble)…I’m asking you Republicans. Why should I risk it all? Are you going to cover my six?

Re: Germany as a 'surrender nation'. Wasn't it Churchill who said, "I love Germany so much I want there always to be two of them"? I'm happy for Germany to remain forever as demilitarized as they are today. As for their anti-American, anti-capitalist agitprop :that was inevitable the moment they began absorbing former Ostie journalists and TV producers into their media. Even so, DW is little worse than the Beeb.

Okay, Jazz. Now that you have established that the color of the sky in your world is feces-brown, let's move on to the topic at hand...

Quote Of The Day

IAEA chairman Mohammed ElBaradei responds to this story:

"Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Teheran.

"There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he told reporters."

The mullahs might recall, if actual thinking about actual things is what they do, that Saddaam had the same lineup of supposed allies and it didn't do him much good.

France talking about WAR on America's side is indeed something. As per fears concerning the French Muslims, they are grossly overrated and France, in contrast to Great Britain is much more willing to effectively and ruthlessly dismantle even smallest pockets of the "Little Caliphates" on their soil. Being son of an immigrant, Sarkozy can't really be accused of being anti immigrant, or xenophobic. The Muslims realize this very well and act accordingly, at leas till now.
Vive la France!

To SwabJockey05,

Visualize a nuclear-armed Iran. I know you can do it. How does civilization deal with it in a way that doesn't end up with massive Iranian-inflicted death somewhere in the world? Would you deal with it pre-emptively, or reactively?

Republicans are just a small part of the picture. Even Democrats would have to address it - though we know their current course is hate-Bush, not dealing with anything outside the US, and calling that 'peace'.

Nuclear Iran's not going to go away by the ostrich method.

I hope you're right on that, TomB. As much as Chirac has ticked me off, I really would prefer not to see Europe surrender to the Islamic Radicals.

Big Lizards has the options analyzed for dealing with the mullahs of Iran.

Personally, I'd like top see the Legion arrive in Basra, sort of OJT in prep for any possible last option military confrontation with Iran. If the French, as they have been for many many years, remain large on rhetoric and small on actual involvement, what Sarkozy says [or his Foreign Minister] is just talk.

Time for the French to step up to the plate and end the surrender mentality once and for all.

Soon, we'll probably see naked diplomatic pants dancers across our stage; as nothing frightens Turtle Bay's goons more than the thought the military can solve problems.

Will Bush flub another opportunity, here?

Hard to tell.

But men's toilets, and diplomacy, have a lot in common. Some people use the facilities to relieve themselves. And, a few others go in there to relieve a "bit more" tension. In any event you don't need language skills. It's all done with "hand signals." Which work as well in france, as here, or anywhere.

We're just getting to see it playing out.

What will Bush do? I'd buy the bet that says "very little."

Why is Iran posturing now? Because their best "gun" ... which was when syria tossed up the nuclear device; is now just a flattened pancake in the syrian desert.

Oh, and syria's assad has sent out the order to torture anyone in the military who dared to share this devastation with the press.

Israel? Work's done. Like Osarik. They've managed to curtail violence against their state; which is the only ones the arabs think would work; which is nuclear devastation.

Meanwhile? With Ami Ayalon NOW inside Olmert's government; you're upping BY TWO, the strength of Israel's navy. (Which includes Dolphin class subs, armed with nuclear capabilities.)

Israel doesn't play tiddly-winks.

But it won't deliver a blow like that to Iran; until the iranians fall into further dispair.

Because?

Right now, the recent foray (with 8 planes), and a few ground troops; taught Assad his ass wasn't covered. And, the iranians? Well, they lost their "investment" as well.

As if Petraeus is gonna tolerate iranian missiles directed at "dozens of military sites, in Irak." Why believe in fantasies; when we've got what it takes to do a "quick" in-and-out? Huh?

You didn't notice? Israel's not hanging around syria, now. No need to "govern" a bunch of motley arabs. So, why not consider this rule applying to iran, too?

We're in Irak, (according to Greenspan), for "oil." Not being in Irak, however, would have made "oil" all that much more costly. Saddam was "that" dangerous! And, now, he's not.

Assad was also building himself up to that danger point. And, now, he's not.

Will the arabs learn to govern themselves?

Seems that in Irak there's a system of "Federation" being carved out. The sunnis climbed on board Petraeus' train. Because they see benefits in receiving American training for their own troops. This was figured out by the Kurds, early on.

While if you want a lesson from Turkey; you saw with the Israeli overflights, that no matter "who" gets elected president; the anti-clergy MILITARY still rules.

Sometimes you see the powers behind the thrones. And, sometimes, not.

One thing about Iran, you don't see on the map, because maps are FLAT pieces of paper; is that it's very mountainous. Lots of innaccessible places. Sort'a like people housed in bowls, surrounded by mountains. Where what syria had was FLAT. In fact.

So, don't go comparing apples to oranges.

As soon as anything flies out of iran, however, besides the gas from politicians, you better believe Israel is poised to teach those jerks a lesson.

While in DC? Dunno what the brass can do. But, like musical chairs, you've always got to eliminate one, while the dancers rotate, standing, until the music stops. Then, at least one flops.

By now? Armitage and Colin Powell are off-center. Many others, ahead, will, too. What's their last great hope? Hillary? When pigs fly.

So far the U.S. government is NOT abonding the troops.

About half of the U.S. government IS AND HAS BEEN abadoning the troops from the outset of hostilities in Afghanistan. Never mind their pronouncement to the countrary, there hearts, words, and votes were never in for the long haul ... heck not even for the short haul.

Remember, America was to blame for 9-11.

No no no filistro,

No country has ceded to the UN sole right to declare war, least of all the United States of America.

Our Constitution nowhere mentions the United Nations. It obliquely mentions treaties, but I haven't seen a single treaty signed by the USA which gives our right to declare war to the UN.

Mohammed ElBaradei is totally wrong on both the premise and his supporting arguments, including statistics.

He better get to work fast having Iran address US issues with its program. The time for diplomacy is nearing an end -- it must either bear fruit or wither. In the absence of a diplomatic breakthrough, the number of centrifuges will drop to zero, and a whole bunch of excellent German engineering will cease to exist.

The Iranians have no transparency into their program; they've lied about its components again and again. They are not allowing inspection of their cascades to assure that they are not configured for weapons grade production. Can we take the chance? I don't think so. Are the Iranians feeling lucky today? Sadly, I think so.

Sensitive,

When you said “I know you can do it” were you saying that the same way my wife says it to the 12 year old neighbor kid? If that was supposed to be an insult, you’ll have to do better than that shipmate. I’m also insufficiently sensitive. You tax payers actually gave me some training on nuclear weapons/ tactics/nuclear war at sea etc. I think I have a pretty good idea what it would mean for Iran to have a few nukes.

Did I hit a nerve when I called your elected republicans cowards for teetering on abandonment? That was my intent. I expected it of the Dhimmis but the cowardice of so many Repubs makes me want to spit with contempt.

Most of the posters here probably don’t even read my comments because I’m too “harsh” or too much of a “loose cannon”….or too “childish” because I “call people names”…etc etc. Tell you the truth. I am too harsh. I don’t have time for pleasantries and the high-falutin' “discussions” with the two-bit trolls who frequent the good Captain’s blog. I know the Capt cuts me lots of slack since I’m active duty so when I retire I’m done.

You may have misunderstood my flame. I didn’t say I wouldn’t kill the enemy. I’ve done it before. I’ll probably do it again before I retire. If Congress declares war and the Pres sends me to Iran. I’ll kill all the Iranians that need killin’ to complete my mission. Do you doubt my resolve on this issue because of my earlier post? If so, doubt no more. I’ll cover my end…but will you cover yours?

How do I know you guys are going to be checkin’ my six when I’m off doing the aforementioned killin’.

You talked about not hiding the head in the sand…ok. I’m with you on that one…but you didn’t answer my main question. How are you going to keep the “American People” on board with killin’ Iranians when you can barely keep 50% of them on board with killing Al Queda lunatics in Iraq?

Reckon it has anything to do with France being in range of the next generation of Iranian missiles?

"There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
____________________________________________

Actually, 700 bazillion trillion quintillion Iraqis have been killed, each and every one at the hands of U.S. GIs.
____________________________________________
"Now you Repubs are talking about starting ANOTHER war? Why should I risk it all?
____________________________________________
To stop Iran from killing our troops in Iraq. To stop Iran from supporting international terrorism. To stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, which will embolden it to a degree we can't even imagine, and set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

If you don't want to risk it all, quit. Tell your superiors you're gay and get out. Leave the fighting to those who understand what's at stake and who are willing to accept the challenge.

Thanks for your service.

The best thing that the French can do is sail their little tiny aircraft carriers to the Gulf area and show their projection of force. Well, its really the second best, the best being the French Foreign Legion making landfall somewhere in Iraq, but that would be like me waking up to this weeks flavor of the month super-model. Thats not happening. At least then there will be a chance France will walk the walk. As a bonus, all the moonbats heads would explode when their favorite wussy country sided with the warmonger, neo-conservative Cheney and his puppet BusHitler.

As for Iraq having no allies, perhaps I was asleep again and dreamed that the Oil-for-Food scandal occured and it really didn't. Revisionist history once again by a leftist.

And as to Germany being a 'surrender nation'. The reason for that is this is not our granpappy's Germany. After WWII the Allies made sure to rid Germany of its militaristic part, Prussia. The boundary was moved 150 miles west removing Prussia from E Germany and giving it to....Poland. Anybody else notice that the Poles don't back down? Could it be coincidence? Or some Prussian backbone infused in their body politic?

Tom W. "Thanks for your service"

LOL!

Tom W.
You may have taken what I said out of context...or more likely, my prose aren't very good (I didn't go to Columbia). My concern over all the saber rattling has nothing to do with "understanding what's at steak". I'll wager I've got as good a handle on that as you'll ever have, shipmate. The "political battlefield" must be prepared as well as the actual battlefield. That takes more than shaking your fist in the air...or sending another CVBG into the Gulf. I don't see it happening.

If you would say you were "gay" to get out of something you were honor-bound to complete, that's fine with me. But that's not how this swabbie operates. I took an oath to the Constitution. Do you think Bush will just order an attack on Iran…or will he ask congress to declare war first? Do you really think the Dhimmis in Congress will declare war…or give Bush “authorization” to attack without a declaration? Maybe taking out their lunatic leadership and a few oil terminals will be enough to cripple their already shitty economy…but not be considered an act of war…so Bush can order it tomorrow with one hand and flip off the Dhimmis with the other?

You didn't read my post or you'd see that I don't have a problem with killin' Iranians (or Syrians for that matter). The leadership of these shitholes should have been takin’ dirt naps years ago.

I can and will hold up my end...will you?

How are you going to keep the “American People” on board with killin’ Iranians when you can barely keep 50% of them on board with killing Al Queda lunatics in Iraq?

My guess is that it will take another 9/11. Remember, the clock is ticking on the Lame Duck.

Never...trust...the...French.

Jazz said:
Iran's list of allies grows, unlike Iraq which had none. This continued appetite for saber rattling against Iran seems short sighted. Antagonizing for war against a small country with not significant military capabilities is one thing. Putting ourselves on the opposite side of a potential shooting match with Russia and China looking across from the other side is another matter entirely.
The "projection of power" crew around here really needs a bit more of a reality check and fewer John Wayne, Flying Leatherneck reruns.

Eric says:
Iran’s allies are all criminals – not people who I will fear. Germany is being greedy as usual. The reality check will come either way. It will either be a reality check that life is not fun in a world with a nuclear Iran, or a reality check for Iran that they need to obey the law. I’m voting for the former.

Russia benefits from us getting serious with Iran. They will have to supply China with oil. China will pay with the American dollars they receive from us. Neither country is willing to give up their new found, American generated wealth, and replace it with a newfound American generated Ass-kicking should we invade or immobilize Iran, and they fire upon us.

Jazz, you’re a coward. You are a serious coward. You’ll have us live your cowardly existence? I think not. Just get-out of the country. I deport you.

Please note: On September 17, 2007 at 5:37 p.m., Eric deported Jazz from the United States. He is no longer an American Citizen and is to be considered an illegal. One less vote for Hillary.

Viva le France!

swabjockey05,
There is some truth to your statement. Several Republicans have abandoned our troops, while even a few Democrats have come to support the troops and the war effort.

And you're right. We should replace them with better Republicans, or conservative Democrats that support the war.

"If you don't want to risk it all, quit. Tell your superiors you're gay and get out. Leave the fighting to those who understand what's at stake and who are willing to accept the challenge."

That is really unfair. Anyone wearing a uniform right now for this country has already proven his willingness to risk it all. But I don't think they should be expected to conduct suicide missions. And that's what a war without the support of the American people will always turn out to be. They go, they die and for what? So the American people can decide at any time, we're just tired of this, let's stop all this war stuff and watch ourselves some American Idol.

I don't think our military should be expected to stand tall and salute the flag when the rest of us reserve the right to stand down and turn our backs to it whenever we feel like it.

I've lived long enough to see what this country is like when we even talk about sending troops into battle. George W. Bush would never have gotten the authorization to start the Iraq War if it hadn't been for 9/11 (and no, not because Iraq caused 9/11 but because the country was willing to accept the idea that Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with because we had seen what other threats that weren't dealt with could do to us).

There was major controversy over Grenada for pete's sake. And Panama? Same thing. A lot of people make fun of Wes Clark and his fly 'em at 50,000 feet so nobody gets shot down during the NATO action in the Balkans, but he's not such a fool. There's a reason why the military is casualty adverse. And it's not because they aren't brave enough or don't understand the challenges. It's because we civilians aren't and don't.

hey cap'n:

i agree.

and i first used the term NEW REALISM in relation to france last weds:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/09/france-may-rejoin-nato.html

From this evening's NYTimes:
MOSCOW, Sept. 17 — France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, sought Monday to tone down remarks he made in a radio and television interview the day before that the world had to prepare for possible war against Iran.

Attacked verbally by Iran and quietly criticized within his own government, Mr. Kouchner shifted the focus away from the threat of war and back to a call for hard negotiations as the way to force Iran to abandon key nuclear activities.

“The worst situation would be war,” Mr. Kouchner told journalists en route to Moscow.

AS I wrote earlier, never...trust...the ... French.

I may be proven completely wrong ,but I'm thinkin that the Cowboy, fighter pilot, George W. was so affected by 9/11 that no way does he leave a nuclear armed Iran to the next guy or to chance.

He has been steadfast on the war on terror when even some in his own party abandon him, as if it is his destiny, indeed it is his duty to defend the United Sates of American whether television educated Americans approve or not. He's takin it to the Muslim fanatics all over the globe in many different ways and you only hear about Iraq or the flavor of the month from the MSM.

It may be as simple as what the Isrealis just did, just make the facilities go away. Time will tell.

In God We Trust!

dhunter said:

I may be proven completely wrong ,but I'm thinkin that the Cowboy, fighter pilot, George W. was so affected by 9/11 that no way does he leave a nuclear armed Iran to the next guy or to chance.

He has been steadfast on the war on terror when even some in his own party abandon him, as if it is his destiny, indeed it is his duty to defend the United Sates of American whether television educated Americans approve or not. He's takin it to the Muslim fanatics all over the globe in many different ways and you only hear about Iraq or the flavor of the month from the MSM.

It may be as simple as what the Isrealis just did, just make the facilities go away. Time will tell.

In God We Trust!

Eric says:
No, I don't think you're wrong. I think you're right, he's not going to leave this for the next guy (gal.) I think he was effected by 9-1-1. I think he has an intelligence network that allows him to make the right decision. You're especially right about this....

In God We Trust!

I think any move on Iraq can and will wait until after the 2008 election for many reasons:

1. Wag the dog accusations.

2. Bush will see who is coming in and whether they are likely to deal with an incipient nuclear Iran.

3. By waiting to the end of his term he will free his successor from a very difficult choice that could seem to dicey to reelection prospects.

4. Foreign countries could support the aftermath without supporting Bush when the new leader comes in because the new leader could say it was "not a decision I would have made but now we have to deal with it."

5. There is a risk of a complete Republican rout if thing do not go well.

6. Iraq should be substantially more wrapped up, freeing some assets.

7. The defense budget for 2009 should already be past and cannot be held over his head.

8. By then, if Iraq is really desperate to prevent an Iraqi success, they may have overplayed their hand with too many Iranians and very deadly Iranian weapons attacks against the US forces and Iraqi forces; thus giving Bush even more cover.