CHESTER HAS MOVED!: Request for Reader Feedback

Friday, November 12, 2004

Request for Reader Feedback

For the next half hour I will be answering reader email from earlier in the week. I welcome reader email and will answer every one I get. Please provide me your thoughts on the content of this site, its layout, or other topics you would like me to cover. UPDATE: We will talk about Iran on this site soon. I have also received the new Atlantic and will read it over the weekend. My first reaction is that anyone (James Fallows in this case) who says, as the cover does, that "Military strikes would invite disaster" is just silly. Military strikes always invite disaster. That's why you have to win. Ido like the Atlantic though, because it has articles by Mark Steyn, Robert Kaplan, and Chris Hitchens, three of my favorites.


Blogger cjr said...

"On Wednesday, an Apache gunship sank five boats in the Euphrates River that the military said were used to resupply guerrillas with rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells."
Hum. Why would they have to bring ammo INTO the city. I would have thought they would have plenty stockpiled in the city. Things must be going pretty badly if they are forced to take such risks.

November 12, 2004 at 3:20 PM  
Blogger Bill West said...

Chester, I appreciate your approach to news analysis and would appreciate as much interpretation as you can provide, having reviewed the bits of information available in the press and military sources. It is helpful to observe the thinking that produces intelligence. Thanks.

November 12, 2004 at 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for your coverage so far. I hope you'll get around to the Iran topic you mentioned a few days back -- I'm interested in what someone with a clue might make of those articles in the last Atlantic, particularly the "we have no acceptable military options" one.

November 12, 2004 at 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the Iran issue, the archive of Michael Ledeen articles on NRO will be a fruitful source of material.

November 12, 2004 at 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a shame that Michael Kelly of the Atlantic died during early April 2003 in a Humvee accident, covering the Iraq war.

November 12, 2004 at 4:06 PM  
Blogger carlee said...

If you have time, you may wish to check out this recent panel discussion on Iran's nuclear ambitions televised on C-SPAN (Part 1 and 2):

The Woodrow Wilson Center and the Hoover Institution host a daylong panel discussion and workshop on Iran's nuclear program. There are three panels: Assessing Iran's Program; The Domestic Politics of Iran's Program; and International Implications of Iran's Efforts.,DESE;

November 12, 2004 at 4:08 PM  
Blogger USMC_Vet said...


Speaking of Iran, John Loftus just reported on the Batchelor show (ABC Radio) that 10 captured fighters in southwest Falluja did not speak Arabic....only Farsi...

Evidence of IRGC plants.

I have long said (pre 9/11) that terror cannot be conquered without a victorious overt confrontation with Iran's Mullahcracy. Iran is the Terroism Epicenter and everyone knows it.

The longer we wait...

...also read (Drudge tip from CBS plant) that a Mr. Imperial Hubris himself has learned that bin Laden has finally recieved the religious edict giving him the green light for nuke attack on America.

The longer we wait...

We stand by watching the UN paper machinations 'dealing' with Iran's nuclear program and discussions of potential sanctions.

The longer we wait...

I remain confident that Iran can be dealt with without an full invasion force if we suport the disorganized but sizable dissenter groups properly. There can still be a fall from within. Weapons of concern are not thoroughly dispersed (yet) within Iran (as was the case in Iraq) and corraling them would be somewhat easier...


The longer we wait...

...Just a thought...

Awesome work. Thank you for your dedication to information.

Meritorious work.

November 12, 2004 at 7:54 PM  
Blogger USMC_Vet said...

I said...

"I remain confident that Iran can be dealt with without an full invasion force if we suport the disorganized but sizable dissenter groups properly."

...I would respectfully like to retract that bit of fantasy.

The evil of passion is that, when momentarily left unrestrained, it can sully logic and judgement.

Did I really say 'confident...without a full invasion force...'???

Wow. Maybe it's time for 3-Stripes-Up to lay Three-Stripes-Down and rest for a few hours.

Embarassed, I humbly relieve myself of all self-assumed posting duties.

Oh...but before I do...from Jamestown Foundation's latest "Terrorism Focus" bi-weekly comes this...>>

"Al-Qaeda Threatens U.S. with Nuclear Attack

A posting on November 9 on a militant jihadist forum purporting to be from al-Qaeda warns that the movement "will not slacken in its striking of the Americans and the Crusaders in general right in their very midst, and their burrows, towers and habitations will avail them not…the New York towers still bear witness to that and stand silently from dread of the catastrophe and the magnitude of the deaths…"

"Even their skies and their earth are our target, and they shall learn that we in the al-Qaeda organization are preparing operations … now that they have refused our Shaykh [Usama]'s truce… and after he warned the American people in his last audio tape not to re-elect the vapid Bush … we say that this refusal justifies God's wrath upon them, so let them wait for what is to come".

"Finally we announce to the Islamic Nation that production and enrichment associated with nuclear or atomic manufacture is not the monopoly of the Crusaders or Westerners, or the world's tyrants; we are making progress in our efforts to produce bombs small in volume but big in impact …"

Al-Qaeda Organization, 26/09/1425 (November 9, 2004)

The credibility of this statement has yet to be confirmed, although the signatory refers to himself as Abu Anas al-Maghribi of the Europe and America branch of al-Qaeda. ("


November 12, 2004 at 9:43 PM  
Blogger USMC_Vet said...

I know, I know...I said I was going to bed...

...but from this week's Friday Sermon from Khameini in Tehran comes this delusionary gem...>>


Tehran University Friday Sermon by Iranian Leader Khamenei: Our Nuclear Weapon Is Our Youth

Ali Khamenei: [Iran] is being accused of wanting to manufacture nuclear weapons. No sir! We are not thinking of nuclear weapons. I've said this many times. Our nuclear weapon is this people. Our nuclear weapon is this youth. We don't want nuclear weapons. A regime, which has so many believing youth and such a united people, doesn't need nuclear weapons. The manufacturing of nuclear weapons, their possession or their use – any of these creates problems. I have also expressed my Islamic legal opinion in the past. It is clear and everyone knows it. The dispute is not over this. They're just saying this and they know it.

They are concerned because the public supports the regime. They are concerned because our youth is blessed with the spirit of Jihad. They are concerned because our youth are believers.

The European gentlemen who are so in love with human rights and who care so much about human rights – these atrocities [in Palestine] are perpetrated before their very eyes. In many cases they keep silent and in many cases they support the oppressing party. It's amazing… let alone America… America itself is an accomplice. The US administration have their hands elbow-deep in the Palestinian blood. If any court were to rule on the Palestinian issue, the defendants would not be only Sharon and the Zionists. The US administration, Bush and his gang, would be in the forefront of the defendant's seat.


"A regime, which has so many believing youth and such a united people, doesn't need nuclear weapons."


However, Iran's theocracy does not have so many believing youth nor a united people. This is not opinion, this is documented fact.

So, to take Khameini's words at face value, is it then reasonable to assume that a regime that does not have such a youth nor such a united society...does need nuclear weapons?

Furthermore, Khameini is subtly implying to his audience (direct and media) that any nuclear device is considered defensive in nature (his youth and united nation can defend the soil of Iran). Since when has Iran demonstrated a defensive rather than offensive posture?

The Germany of 1931 required 'defenses' as well, all the while praising its youth and united and great culture (nay race).

The rhetoric should sound erily familiar to even a casula student of history.

The longer we wait...

November 12, 2004 at 10:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise