Al Queda in Iran?/ U.S. Considering Toppling Iranian Gov.

On warships such as Constitution during the war of 1812, the main armament was commonly a 24-lb. "long-gun," the 24 pounds referring to the weight of the projectile--in this case, a stone or iron ball (at that date almost certain not stone) of about the size of a softball. These guns, with carriage, could weigh upwards of 3000 lbs. They were attached to the inner side of the outer hull on the gun deck by heavy chains, which were given sufficient slack to allow the gun carriage to run back, to recoil, as it was fired. The chain assured that a ton and a half or more of iron and wood on wheels wasn't zipping about to the detriment of all. Constitution has wooden sides of 26" oak, so serious splinter damage (there were nets placed just inside the outer hull to catch slinters, reducing injuries from this form of shrapnel) and broken gun chains were unlikely, and so she likely never experienced it. But an advantage we enjoyed in that war, apart from our Frigates mounting uniformly more ordance than the British frigates, was that they used a 16 lb. long gun as opposed to our 24 lb., and we therefore had an advantage of weight of metal, as well as range. The likelyhood that more than once, Constitution put a broadside into the outer hull of an opponent with such force that one or more of the chains holding the guns in place on the gun deck actually broke is reasonably high. Imagine the shiver of terror which ran down the back of every sailor and marine on a gun deck when he heard that frantic scream: "Loose cannon on deck!"

Now, think of Bush and his administration. Think of the expression, "loose cannon," and think of the Shrub. Use the images you might have formed while reading the above.

This administration is a loose cannon.

LOL Setanta, I was wondering where you were going with that.

IMO there has to be a bit more than the article suggests. Has to be. Otherwise Setanta is right and the admin is a loose cannon.



The allegation that Al Qaeda operated out of Iranian soil in and of itself should not be motivation for those actions. Al Qaeda has operated out of US soil.

There would have to be a bit more to it. "Giving haven to Al Qaeda" is an accusation that, IMO, is made lightly many times. Knowing that Al Qaeda was out to get us was not enough to keep them from operating on our soil and I wonder what the admin expects Iran to be able to do.

The presence of Al Qaeda is one thing, the complicity of the Iranian givernment is another.





Iran seemed to have been cooperating with the "war on terror" so I wonder what exactly brought about the shift. Maybe there's intel that's justifying the amin stance but maybe it's just because we have troops in the area and....

IMO it's just an attempt to capitalize on the attack. These attacks give political capital that is hard to come by and Iran has long been on Bush's public hit list. They eeven made his short hit list, which is now down to two.

so - it all begins again.

I wonder if it's the same intelligence that said France is smuggling former Iraqui officials? I *really* don't trust this "intelligence" ...

For what it's worth there won't be a war unless a whole lot happens between now and then.

I wouldn't make bets on the loose cannon. <winks>

stasia

This Bush vr Iran thing has been building since the begining of the war on Iraq. I think Setanta's post is right on target <no pun intended>

I was actually thinking about betting on that.

I think Bush sincerely believes that by toppling enough Muslim governments the Middle East will become like American suburbs.

Open on a mid-wide shot :The Oval Office
Cam 1 Dolly zoom to stage left mid close over shoulder
The president is at his desk looking over a single piece of paper.
He is alone and musing to himself
P: Now's there two left in the Axis of Evil.
(takes pencil and makes X in box next to the top line.
Although it pisses me off we can't find that sob's body or something that resembles all that **** that Colin said that they had.
Cut to close up Cam 2
Now, who's left? North Korea and Iran. North Korea and Iran. North Korea and I.... hey, I wonder if that's where he is and maybe that's where all the weaps are!
1 Mid shot dolly right
That'd be like the damn Iraqis. Didn't Poppy say something about how they flew their planes into Iran that time before?cam 3 Cut to phone
I'll have to call him.
Cam 2 center three button shot
There's three hundred pages of intel on North Korea to read, Jesus and almost that much on Iran.
Maybe I'll just pick one like the last time.

(Takes coin out of pocket)
Heads Iran, tails North Korea...
(Flips coin)
Cut to 3 coin mid-air 82degree slo-mo

Cut to black

This "video" is a little bit older, although seems to be actual as before:

Osama bin Laden: nowhere to run - nowhere to hide

Walter, that is absotively high-larious . . .

Iranian regime was hostile toward the USA from the very moment of its establishment. Even the Bolsheviks in 1917 did not barge in the U.S. Embassy in Petrograd and did not take its staff as hostages. Neither the Nazis afforded themselves such an escapade. Iranians do not give [you know what] to the rules of coexistence, and they are in process of building nuclear weapons. It is better to intimidate them once and forever before they get equipped with nukes. I feel that many of Iranian citizens will feel much happier when the obscurantist and deeply corrupt regime is overturned.

al Qaida operates out of the US too. Wonder what plans the WH has for replacing this government? c.i.

Yes, and of course, it would be no skin off your nose how many Americans or British would die in such an attempt . . . nor what the repercussions for the United States and the United Kingdom would be in the future. So what, Steissd, you'd like to see us all live in a world of murderously violent surreality, such as you enjoy in Israel?

Which wouldn't be a high-story.

I would not advocate starting a terrestrial campaign prior to destroying all the infrastructure of Iran from the air, by means of bombers and missiles. This will minimize losses of the troops. If necessary, tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons should be used for further efficience and demoralizing of the enemy. If this worked against Japan, I do not see any reasons for its being inefficient against Iran and/or North Korea. I am not interested in high casualty level of the American/British troops either; frankly speaking, Iranian casualties are beyond my concern. They have deliberately toppled the progressive and enlightened monarch to replace him with rabid Mullahs, so they should pay the price.

I think the Iranian people will get rid of their regime theirselves. They won't need the "help" of the US regime in my opinion.

You mean, steissd, the USA should start a nuclear war on Iran?