What is all this about bombing Iran, the mountaines and all the rest.

What do you know about Iran. If there are 70 million Iranians living in Iran, at least one percent of them are poets and writers. That is about 700,000 Iranians(again this is minimum). Do you intend to kill them?

There are at least 10 million Iranians studying all over the country. Do you intend to kill all those sudents?

All the world knows that there are many excellent medical doctors working in Iran. Do you intend to kill them?

At least 70 percent of Iranians living in Iran pray God 5 times a day. They believe that is the God of Abraham, the Jews and Christians. They respect the Jews and the Christians. The rest of Iranians may not pray 5 times a day but most of them are kind and love other human beings. Do you intend to kill them?

Who has given us the right to bomb others? God, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates,Plato,Aristotle?Who?

Posted by: heidarbaba at May 16, 2008 07:46 AM

I guess Israel is happy, and so am I that Fallon is gone. Iran has always been a disturbing for its support to Iraq insugents, especially EFP flowing from Iran. Attacking these EFP building sites as well as stockpiles of weapons is very meaningful to stop the flow of weapons from Iran into Iraq. Fallon was one of the obstacles for options to attack these elements. There is no guarantee that it will happen, but at least one obstacle has been removed to choose the option to attack sites in Iran supporting the insurgents in Iraq.

>The U.S. will need plenty of thermobaric bombs &
>to saturate EVERY mountain in Iran with them.

May you spare the lives of Kurdish seperatists in Iran? Let's hope the Arab, Azeri, and Baluchi seperatists would do us a favor as well. I also guess there might be something better than thermobaric bombs for certain cases.

Posted by: pedestrian at March 17, 2008 10:53 AM

He's a weakling and a high ranked one!That,statement is equal to:nothing...He must be,
up to something else then?To leave,his troops over
such a statement by:An, outsider is literally foolishness!

Posted by: Saul at March 13, 2008 02:13 PM

Jimbo Jones
Is this precise & to the point enough?

"Sharon's in a coma & Olmert doesn't have the balls to defend his own nation or people.We don't owe them shit & we shouldn't bomb Iran on their behalf."

We should only bomb Iran when Olmert finally "grows a pair"(which ranks up there with "when pigs fly" or "And monkeys might fly out of my ass").

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 05:49 PM

Sharon's in a coma & Olmert doesn't have the balls to defend his own nation or people.We don't owe them shit & we shouldn't bomb Iran on their behalf.

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 05:37 PM

Not to split hairs, but the kaiser had only indirect influence in the middle east, it was the Ottoman empire the brits & french divided.

Anyways, Fallon did what he did & said what he said and sometimes things can just be taken at face value. Perhaps his resolve was strengthened by the decsions of generals before him, some of whom waited too long for their own consciences

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/iraqgenerals200704

Posted by: ak at March 12, 2008 04:58 PM

..I mean always gets his way....

Posted by: CR at March 12, 2008 04:49 PM

Lets also not forget that Cheney always gets his always and rarely loses a burecratic fight.

Posted by: CR at March 12, 2008 04:36 PM

Don't forget that Bush promised Israel(Sharon) that he would attack Iran before he was out of office. I'm guessing we're getting very close to the date of the attack and the admin is getting rid of the nay-sayers.

lenn

Posted by: lenn at March 12, 2008 03:55 PM

Anna,

Good points, when I say dividing up the region I realize that we had no involvement in the original divvying up but we did have involvement post WWII (Israel) and we are in fact planting the seeds for future instability (see Kurds).

Iran denying the Holocaust only makes them look delusional and ill informed in everyones eyes. Conflict strengthens the hard liners in Iran, rapproachment and engagement will threaten their hold on power.

With regards to Lenin, he is buried along with his dead idealogies....

Posted by: CR at March 12, 2008 03:04 PM

See video: Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not have to accept Admiral Fallon's resignation. "The military people think basically that Admiral Fallon was PUSHED OUT" - Mark Thompson Time Magazine National Security Correspondent
Fallon is described as "the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran."

Posted by: Tom at March 12, 2008 02:34 PM

Roy Smith, can you please use paragraphs, at least then it'll be somewhat readable instead of a wall of mangled text.

Posted by: Jimbo Jones at March 12, 2008 02:03 PM

And CR you are misconstruing history. When I say Great Powers, I am referring to England and France redrawing the borders of the Middle East after WWI to divvy up the Kaiser's Empire. Which is how Kurds ended up in Turkey, Iraq, Iran/Persia, and Syria. The United States had zero involvement in that.

To have a rational conversation, you must have rational parties. When Iran holds conferences to deny the murder of 12 million people by the Nazis and calling for the extermination of the state of Israel, I find it hard to call that rational.

How cooperative should we be? Until Lenin's adage of 'We will hang the last capitalist with the rope he sells us' comes true? In this case replace capitalist with infidel Westerners.

Posted by: Anna Puna at March 12, 2008 01:43 PM

No,I actually meant "FEMA 'trailer parks'."

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 11:20 AM

Sorry,I shouldn't have said "concentration camps."I meant to say "Detention Centers."

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 11:07 AM

I agree with Jason about Barnett. He is not some careless journalist just trying to make a name for himself. He has a long history with the Admiral and the Navy War College.

It would be a story in itself if he suddenly shifted from analyst to muck raking journalist. I truly hope this does not indicate a shift towards war as it would be a large strategic mistake.

Posted by: Jim Dawson at March 12, 2008 11:03 AM

KBR(Kellogg Brown Root)=Jennings & Rall
Blackwater USA=Ravenwood
Skynet?Well,Skynet is Skynet.

Now if KBR can take time off from building their "concentration camps" in the U.S. & Blackwater can take off from teaching our law enforcement agencies "Martial Law" techniques.maybe they can hook up with Skynet & bomb Tehran,huh?

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 11:02 AM

Looks like we need Jennings & Rall,Ravenwood,& Skynet to pull our chestnuts out of the fire over this one.Where's our UCAVs,Armed UGVs,& Unmanned surface craft,& the "private contractors" to operate them?

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 10:57 AM

Anna,

I think you are helping to make my point....meddling/creating conflict in the Middle East threatens to destabilize it even further. It is precisely because of our role in dividing up the region that we are viewed with suspicion.

I would counsel trying to find common ground and areas of mutual interest.....may seem difficult and perhaps near impossible but it can be done.

I believe that when dealing with leaders such as Ahmadinejad it serves our interest to be the rational, cooperative party....helps make your case and line up international support.

Posted by: CR at March 12, 2008 10:54 AM

James,

I think your apparent anger at me is misplaced. Let me clarify the point I was trying to make.

I make no judgment on whether invading Iraq was right or wrong; that is now irrelevant.

Our mission in this so-called War on Terror is an expensive one. Our economy isn't so hot right now and Congressional spending (both Republican and Democratic) has exceeded its income for many years.

I don't think you'll disagree with any of that.

At some point, now or twenty years from now, we're going to have to reduce spending for a change.

And my point is that the last cut that should be made to government spending is for our security and the military might to make sure of it. That includes taking care of our veterans. They risked their lives and deserve our gratitude. I include Admiral Fallon in that number.

All of our presidential candidates better take note of that.

Posted by: Foraker at March 12, 2008 10:47 AM

What our forces need(even the U.S. Army) is more vehicles like The Marines new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle(if it ever comes on line) & Assault Amphibian Vehicles,because,hopefully,they could operate in marshland during the rainy seasons(they can also float,unlike the M1,& yes I did witness M2 Bradleys "swimming" in Germany,but I wouldn't want them to do that much).Having vehicles like this,the Gibbs Technologies/Lockheed Martin Military High Speed Amphibian 4x4 ACC-E(Expeditionary) & 6x6 ACC-R(Riverine),would also go a long way in how we would fight the Iranians & their "hovercrafts." We would definately need vehicles tailored for long mountain climbs & going through narrow passes.We would need to carry plenty of water to cool down our equipment while crossing the Dasht-e Kavir(Salt Desert).
You know,H.G. Wells predicted that World War III would start with an event in Basra.Could it be a Iranian attack or counter-attack to seize Basra? What would incite them to do such a thing?

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 10:45 AM

CR, we are still dealing with the ripples created when the Great Powers divided up the Middle East after the Great War in ways suited for them and not the countries they cavalierly messed with.

So if we are fearful of ripples we should do nothing? Not even when a whack job is murdering people in job lots, defying the Global Test that says he is a whack job, and a whack job that wants to conquer his neighbors if given half a chance? What a quandry huh?

Posted by: Anna Puna at March 12, 2008 10:13 AM

It is not a question whether or not we should 'fear Iranian hovercraft'...the question is do we really feel it is in our best interests to strike Iran now or in the near future? Is it wise to attack a Country that can easily supply Shiite milititas inside of Iraq with advanced munitions to kill US troops? Is it wise to attack a Country in the Gulf and drive oil prices even higher? Is it wise to attack another muslim Country on 'sound intel' again and create a whole new generation of Al Qaeda operatives?

Is it wise to attack a predominantly Shiite nation while our troops occupy a predominantly Shiite neighbor??

When you throw a rock in a pond the ripples travel a long way and will come ashore at some point.

Posted by: CR at March 12, 2008 09:16 AM

Roy Smith:

After giving the matter considerable thought, I too fear Iranian hovercraft and the doom which clearly awaits us.

Posted by: Rob1855 at March 12, 2008 05:19 AM

It is a shame that Admiral Fallon resigned because it likely does indicate a forward intention if Iran. After all, the journalist was Thomas Barnett, a military strategist.

We are missing a great opportunity in Iraq. No question the country is run by a bunch of whack jobs but that does mean they can't do our dirty work for us. why should we have to fight the Taliban when the Iranians will do?

Iran backs the insurgents in Iraq because to keep us bogged down. Iran isn't stupid if Iraq is too stable, we will be poised to attack them. Iran wants a stable Iraq but as long as we have so much of our military so close to them and we continue rattling sabers at them, they will continue to fighting.

And with so few Farsi speakers and not nearly enough troops to police the border, do we expect to ever stop it? Strategic partnership is the way forwards that the Iraq Study Group said two years ago.

Posted by: Jim Dawson at March 12, 2008 12:43 AM

The U.S. will need plenty of thermobaric bombs & to saturate EVERY mountain in Iran with them.That is because If I were the Iranians,I'd have my forces dug into the mountains using as an example,the Japanese on the Pacific Islands during World War II,The North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War,Tora Bora in Afghanistan,the North Koreans having their heavy artillery dug into the mountain sides facing South Korea,& finally how the Swiss are defending their borders with fortress cannons & mortars dug into the mountain side,& tank turrets on pillboxes.If we did send ground forces into Iran,they won't be riding in like they did the "flat lands" of Iraq.
The reason we did so well during Desert Storm is because we studied Iraqi battle tactics.Unfortunately DarthAmerica,the OSD "Kool Aid" drinkers were in charge of the 2003 Iraqi Invasion & totally refused to listen to their military officers who knew better.I'm so afraid that the OSD "Kool Aid" drinkers will totally f**k up any attack against Iran.They won't study how Iran fought during the Iraq-Iran War.They'll dismiss Iranian tactics to being nothing more than little kids storming the front lines of their enemy.The Iranians were worn out by the war against Iraq,but they gave them a run for their money.They'll control the swamps during rainy season because we won't be able to move our tanks & Bradleys though the "quicksand." I seriously doubt that our Strykers will do any better.Also,the FCS vehicles are so far in the future that to mention them being used in combat is relegated to fantasy.The Caspian Sea is off limits to us,so we can't use it as an avenue for invasion.We could probably grab a fraction of Iranian land like Iraq was able to in the 80's,but no more than that.During rainy season,the Iranians will push us back with their water & hovercraft.I'm sure that the Iranians can set up decoy targets to fool us like Serbia did against us during the "Kosovo War."
If we made it over the mountains of Iran,the heat & the fact that the Dasht-e Kavir(Salt Desert) is very soft & has no water,makes it impossible to move our tanks &/artillery over it,much less fire them because they'll overheat(& there's no water to cool them down).I have to say that Admiral Fallon has more balls than Franks,Sanchez,Abazaid,Myers,& Pace had.

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 12, 2008 12:33 AM

Hard to say specifically what Fallon's true motives were, but I would speculate he sees the writing on the wall where Iran is concerned. As a member of our armed forces, he swore an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. As such, I do not believe he could remain in a position where he would have been ordered to initiate another armed conflict, and sent more of America's best and brightest to their potential deaths, without a formal Declaration of War.

I truly believe our nation is heading down a dark path, and a return to true constitutional government is essential to restoring our Republic. I wish we could bring all our boys and girls back home from around the world, and have them bleed defending their own soil for once. We all know our borders are a joke, why not actually defend it?

Anyway, if my speculation is accurate, I commend the Admiral on making a statement by resigning rather than continuing to pursue a suicidal national agenda at the expense of our fighting forces. The message is loud and clear...get another yes-man, Mr. President.

Posted by: ConradThe Crazed at March 11, 2008 08:14 PM

Wow, Fallon for Veep! Anybody hear how that worked for that nice chap, Wesley Clark?

Actually, military service, unless you are a bona fide hero who changed the world (US Grant, Ike, Zombie Reagan), isn't a great selling point.

For a career officer (41 years!!!!), it is a political career killer, because then you are a bureaucrat, and you absolutely WILL f#$k up the campaign trail, because, what the heck does a bureaucrat know about kissing babies? Go fill those forms out in triplicate please and don't request mast.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at March 11, 2008 07:32 PM

Jim

Agreed, the comment was ill written on the fly.

Basic point was that Fallon either saw the writing on the wall and made lemonade with lemons or not.

Either way 2nd point was that a Obama even with a Fallon holding shotgun will be a disaster. The closest example today would be the Olmert government. If you go to the link you will see were he basically told S Israel to get used to the rockets.

Real leadership pushing for peace or just another pansy that lacks the balls to make the hard ugly calls life often requires? Anyone who thinks the hollow candidate of/from "Hope" would be different is just not paying attention.

Someone mentioned Obahma's video

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191487.php

Leadership? I guess we will HOPE the rest of the world follows suite, and HOPE our enemies realize we love them to so they no longer have to kill US infidels?

This is what happens when a culture becomes based on feelings and intentions rather than results and actions.

Posted by: C-Low at March 11, 2008 07:31 PM

Fallon is gone because he was in the way:

"By all accounts, the points of contention between Fallon and Bush administration officials centered on three points: 1) his belief that the indefinite occupation of Iraq is a disaster for the US military, 2) that diplomacy has a central role in American foreign and national security policy, 3) that war is not a credible policy for the US to pursue in dealing with Iran. The last of these was believed to be the key issue."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182868.php

Posted by: TB at March 11, 2008 07:02 PM

I have a sneaking suspicion that this has to do with the upcoming military action against Iran. From rumors I've heard, it's to start the week of the 24th.

I don't know if it'll be direct US involvement or just us operating in a support role of some kind against the nation who starts the conflict, but I do know that many US-based military personal are being told to report for special duty and are expected to be working 20 hour days for at least two weeks.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 11, 2008 06:49 PM

As others have pointed out, once Fallon started making public comments that flatly contradicted administration policy ... then he had to go. Disagreeing in private is one thing, in public is another.

Posted by: jim at March 11, 2008 06:12 PM

"I wonder how many people who want to go to war against Iran realize that it is mountainous,that the Dasht-e Kavir(Salt Desert) is quite formidable" ---Roy Smith

I wonder why it is that the people who comment so much about war more often than not have no idea about it?

None of the military options for Iran require a massive ground invasion. Any US/coalition attack on Iran would be aimed at the disruption of Iran's leadership, military, oil/gas economy, terror related bases and nuclear infrastructure and would originate from the Sea and Air. The Army and USMC would have the task of dealing with Iranian retaliation in Iraq and Afghanistan which would look like spring and summer of 2007 OIF but a bit worse.

None of these target sets require occupation or massive ground invasion. Also, Irans military would be unable to stop U.S. Army units if they crossed the border assuming such a manuver was logistically feesible which for any long term stay it isn't currently.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at March 11, 2008 05:52 PM

The government decides policy. The military's role is to, with the exception of opposing egregious crimes or plainfully unlawful acts, advise them of the feasibility of a military course of action and it's possible outcomes, not it's validity as a point of policy. If Fallon stayed in position and opposed a lawful policy for his own reasons that would betray all years of service. I happen to agree with him. However I do not think the purpose of the military is to oppose the wishes of the elected government (within the parameters set above). I don't see this as the actions of a man setting himself up for a future political career but rather as the principled resignation of a man that could not agree with a policy position but where his disagreement was not purely and solely on the grounds of military feasibility. For that I salute him.

Posted by: spw at March 11, 2008 05:45 PM

foraker..............ok there needs to be a new rule no evil bush evil iraq talk for NO reason all the time you sound like a polotician stop it

oh one other thing if here another im against the iraq war.ill kill someone......who isnt against the iraq war!. seriously think about it its like saying im against having this broken legg i dont want it...what as apossed to the alternative.?

war sucks....spending lots o money on war sucks....ask a soldier...do you like going to war? he say no...i hope at least he probbly will if hes american....and sane.....

sometimes to not fight to not kill your enemies is worse than the alternative...welcome to the real world...

heres what i have against obamacal
1)hes same old polotiian only reason hes gottin this far if not is because hes photogenic
2)if he isnt hes got no idea about the real world...so he lived in another country........who freaking cares thats like saying i should run for mayor of new york if i stopped for gas there..seriously wtf
3)hes one of these idiots that believe by neutering our military he makes the world better
yall never seen the video where he says hell cut missile defense,FCS, programes like that? wtf

he is a fool his getting the presidency will make me think long and hard about the intellagence of my countrymen

Posted by: James at March 11, 2008 05:38 PM

I wonder how many people who want to go to war against Iran realize that it is mountainous,that the Dasht-e Kavir(Salt Desert) is quite formidable(it defeated Desert One during the Iran Hostage Crisis),& that Iran has plenty of marshland.That's why Iran doesn't have many tanks,they can't maneuver on Iran's terrain.Instead,they have a shit load of hovercraft(same as North Korea,by the way).Anybody who thinks that we can just drive a small division like 3rd Infantry Division into Tehran like we did into Baghdad is so sorely delusional & not grounded in reality.Anybody like that needs to stop drinking Rumsfeld's/Perle's/Wolfowitz/Feith's Kool Aide.

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 11, 2008 05:24 PM

Best wishes to the Admiral. Thanks for your 41(!) years of service.

The current Iraq/Afghan missions are running about $12 billion per month. Here's hoping that we don't bankrupt this grand nation with our foreign adventures before we can take care of our retired service members the way they deserve.

Posted by: Foraker at March 11, 2008 05:04 PM

C-Low -

What language are you speaking? It certainly doesn't seem to be English! I read your comment three times, and I still can't figure out exactly what you're saying...

Posted by: Jim at March 11, 2008 04:56 PM

James Christian
That was my thoughts exactly. To old and made to many enemies to move up so instead a timed interview to buy warm fuzzies with the left and giving false meaning an expected exit. Slick if true.

The idea of Obama as president even with a capable but poli/soft 2nd...... Is the US gen pop really so jealous and longing the nearest comparable political match see Israel.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3517751,00.html

I could see many scenerio's of a president Obama giving such a speech to US citizens just sub rocket for terrorist bombs.

Posted by: C-Low at March 11, 2008 04:48 PM

Well since no one in the WH or DoD dismissed Barnett's Esquire article as BS, it was accurate. I don't think Fallon was dumb enough to be that open, opinionated, and perhaps confrontational without expecting ramifications. Must have wanted out.

I read the Esquire piece three times when it was posted, and found it extremely educational. As someone who is ardently opposed to Bush's Iran strategy, I am very disappointed Fallon got canned for publicly opposing Bush's dangerous policies.

Posted by: Bryan2020 at March 11, 2008 04:30 PM

Given what I know of Dr Thomas Barnett, both through his work, his strategic vision, and a few short emails back and forth, he is not the kind of man to publish anything that would out anyone without their permission. He is a straight shooter almost to a fault.

I think your analysis/conjecture that this was all orchestrated is probably accurate.

Posted by: Jason D McClain at March 11, 2008 04:04 PM

Me thinks he wants nothing to do with a planned strike on Iran......

Posted by: CR at March 11, 2008 03:58 PM

James,

Hmmm, VP for Obama?

Posted by: Christian at March 11, 2008 03:35 PM

sniff....sniff....what is this smell me thinks a poloitical campain in future

Posted by: James at March 11, 2008 03:26 PM