Iran attack planned.

The only trace you'll find of the "startling news"*, though, is here

My views are:

1. What are the odds on even the battle group commander knowing this attack is a certainty, let alone staff officers?

2. Makes me feel better than if there WASNT a plan to attack Iran.
- We had plans set for nuke strikes on the Soviet Union, too... and probably still do... on Russia, and they on us.

* not REALLY startling..

Now here's what I'd suggest you guys think about.

The scenario presented in The Heritage symposium written about in the Telegraph is absolutely 'Worst Case'.

Despite all the bluff and bluster of the Mullah Mouthpiece, Iran is in a sorry military state. Their Nuke program is being done and touted at the expense of every domestic infrastruture facility. Their claimed military advances in their own press have, to illustrate them, images of foreign, mainly US, military weapons and aircraft.
They cant even keep their own Air Force aircraft flying.

Iran has ONE gasoline refinery and has been importing gasoline for years. What's with THAT?

In REALITY Iran is only slightly more a threat, militarily, than North Korea.

Anything they can offer up, we can blow away... and that includes nuke missiles.

Where they threaten is through subversion and the chance that they can draw an attack on themselves thus appear the victims, sparking and 'anti-US' uprising worldwide.

Now THAT is a tricky hand to play against. Lets hope cooler heads prevail, but if Achoo mini jihad wants to play the hand, they'll adapt the 9/11 conspiracist scenario and essentially nuke themselves.

These guys ALWAYS give a hint before they do something weird and he's referred to that by implication, already.

 

We need to just support the half of the Iranian population that wants to see the Mullahs overthrown. If Iran gets a nuke, we probably will have to bomb as much of their nuclear infrastructure as possible. I'm heartened that France finally has a leader (Sarkozy) that realizes bombing Iran may have to happen if worse comes to worse.

 

Ugh.

 

agreed

There was a good Krugman column from back in February about the possibility of conflict with Iran. I still have it amongst my various newspaper clipings but that doesn't really help you now that its times select. Don't imagine any of you are too keen on paying $4.95 for one op-ed!

 

Paul Krugman is a complete idiot. The worst NY Times editorialist by far.

If Iran gets close to producing nukes, we have no choice but to attack Iran. They preach the destruction of a sovereign state which would be a major violation of international law. You'll find as they get nearer to producing nukes countries like France and Germany will fully support bombing certain targets within Iran.

Their soccer team should be banned from competing internationally as well. Just like South Africa was once banned.

 

For god sake we don't own the whole fVcking world! Nor should we. This intervene here start another war there attitude isn't cutting it. Excuse me while I go barf.

 

The U.S. doesn't own the whole world, but it is the only superpower in the world today. No other country can carry the burden of safe guarding the world like the United States. Europe couldn't even handle the Balkans conflict without having to ask the US to intervene.

Nobody is talking about starting another war either, we're talking about preventing an extremist Shia Muslim government from having nukes. The Iranian government says it wants to obliterate Israel. Should we, a democratic and free country, allow them to do that?

Should Saddam Hussein been allowed to just take over Kuwait? Should he have been allowed to have a nuclear weapon?

You also need to go back and read what I first wrote... we need to support the dissidents in Iran and hope for a velvet revolution. So I am not for war... but the current regime in Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons at all costs.

Shitty world we live in Spencer. Some countries actually oppress their own people and hope bad things come to others. Really truly.

 

this administration has been looking for a reason to go into Iran since the day after we first went into Iraq. we'd have already done if it Iraq had been the cakewalk that they mistakenly thought it would.

 

We aren't going to invade Iran, we will bomb selected sites in Iran... if it ever comes to that. Hopefully it won't and hopefully the Iranian people will overthrow the religous fanatics who oppress them before the Mullahs do something horrible.

 

i guarantee that there is NO chance that the Iranian people would try to overthrow their government if we go dropping bombs on their sovereign nation -- that would cause quite a bit of rallying around the powers that be to defend themselves against the "American aggressors"

 

If at some point down the road(perhaps not to far) Iran do indeed have nuclear weapons and they are indeed pointed at Israel then without doubt we take them out. But until then we ought to try something called negotiation. I know I know we don't actually like talking to people, but consider, we've finally gotten around to it with North Korea and well it looks to be working. Finally a success under Secretary Rice.

No. Should we be able to just take over Iraq? Also a no. Why do we get different rules?

No, and if you want to show the evidence that they were remotely close to getting one I'll be quite happy to immerse myself in it. The White House probably wouldn't mind it either so you should send one out their direction as well.

Uncle Ike did that a while back and it didn't turn out so well. We have supported dissidents and rebels all over the world and continue to. They kill military members, they kill government members, they start civil wars, and anything else which could be useful in undermining and overthrowing the government. So when Iran does exactly the same thing in Iraq what gives us the right to cry a river? They’re acting in their interest, we act in ours. When they do it they're inciting violence through state sponsored terrorism, when we do it were cultivating democracy even if the guns we paid for are doing the opposite. Again why is it that we get another set of rules?

Look I'm not advocating an end to all foreign military intervention. That is obviously not practical and very whimsical. I’ll leave pipe dreams like that to the types that were protesting at Heathrow last week. But can we cut the hypocrisy and BS? This country does not stand for all that is right and good and all those who disagree with us do not stand for all that it wrong and evil.

Thanks for the tip I hadn't realized :wow:

 

The only difference between Iran today and 1930's Germany, is Germany started a war and then tried to get nukes, Iran want the nukes first.

 

Spencer,

In the 1980's Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor so he could build nukes. The Israelis bombed the facility before it got started. That's what I'm talking about... not Saddam's post Gulf War retention of WMDs.

And you still don't get what I'm saying about Iran. I WANT A VELVET REVOLUTION!!! Do you know what that means? It means a peaceful revolution, i.e., non-violent. Supporting Iranian dissidents has nothing to do with arming them. They aren't even trying to arm themselves. They are going about it peacefully.

American support is not predicated on giving someone a gun Spencer. Pay attention to what your government actually does on a daily basis.

Lastly, it is obscene to compare Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to our invasion of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq to take anything from the Iraqi people, we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein (a dictator who's regime oppressed its people every day) and thereby give Iraqis their freedom. Big difference Spencer. We invaded to help the Iraqis, not hurt them.

 

jorge,

they would do it before the Mullahs got the bomb so we wouldn't have to bomb sites in Iran. if the Iranian people do not do it before their government gets the bomb then this problem arises... but I'm hoping they change their government before the Western world (not just America) has to do something.

we don't want to bomb iran. we want the people to overthrow their government. we are supporting them right now. we want a peaceful political revolution in iran. we want no more mullahs. however, if the mullahs get close to the bomb before they are overthrown bombing sites in Iran is probably going to have to happen.

shitty world we live in and its not changing for the better just yet.

 

They waged an unprovoked war on a sovergin nation. We waged an unprovoked war on a sovereign nation.

I could really careless if we invaded to topple Saddam, we now work side by side with the henchman who carried out the oppression you speak of. The people whom we were to have liberated are now subjected to a incompetent government incapable of anything, a worse infrastructure, daily sectarian violence, and are fleeing. Anybody who invades a sovereign nation will make the argument that its in the invaded best interest. The results always speaks the loudest. We've destroyed the social fabric of a nation and left it in tatters. Destroyed for generations to come. No matter what way you look at it was wrong. And who's done it? The United States of America. It doesn't make the crime any less severe.

What you can't say this? Its absurd, its anti American, its unpatriotic? Thats just as bull as the politically correct culture that has griped this country, it has the same effect, it accomplishes the same thing.

 

We didn't invade Iraq unprovoked. We were at war with Iraq since the first Gulf War. Under international law we, the US, enforced the no fly zones over Iraq and the oil embargo. Every week Iraqi anti-aircraft guns/missiles were fired at US airplanes.

Saddam Hussein's regime was on a daily basis in violation of international law. His regime was a human rights atrocity. Just War theory, under international law, allows for criminals such as Saddam Hussein to be dealt with by war. We didn't invade "Iraq", we attacked the regime. We aren't against the Iraqi people and we did not invade Iraq to take over the country. If you do not understand that that is what Saddam Hussein did when he occupied Kuwait, you're ignorant of world events and the law.

Comparing the US's actions to Saddam Hussein's actions is obscene, shameful, and not serious.

 

Well then.

Yes they fired upon US and UN planes every week yet they failed to ever hit any of them. This is because it was the equivalent of a four year old throwing a pebble at a soaring Eagle. Lyle, do you honestly believe that this is a proper reason for war?

There are many many countries who are in constant violation of human rights and international law. We give money and/or weapons to some of them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt)and we certainly don’t go around starting war ( or perhaps reigniting war is a term you’d prefer) with all of them. I don't deny that something had to be done in Iraq. I disagree with the action we took, I think the results have been disastrous for both the Iraqi people and us. But it appears with your neo-con thought process in place you are ready to justify any US action regardless of reality or result.

Some shitty stuff we do Lyle. Some of the decisions the United States has made in the past and present actually do cost innocent lives and cause irreparable harm to societies. Really truly mate.

Just because I can look at it somewhat objectively and acknowledge or even hold my own country accountable in such cases and applaud it in other cases does not mean I'm ignorant, obscene, shameful, or not serious.

But I suppose its about time to pull the plug on this one. Lest I say something else that offends what your notion of America and you have to pull out the ignorant, obscene, shameful card again to undermine me.

 

That's a thoughtful response Spencer but you are ignoring the actual state of affairs at the time of the decision...

The biggest financial international fraud EVER by means of the "Oil for Food" program, ... remember that when some appeal for sanctions against Iran...and that fraud managed EXACTLY by the international body in which we are told to put our trust in these affairs.

DESPITE 14 Security Council resolutions, despite UN inspectors being led on an obvious goose chase by Saddam.
DESPITE the widespread knowledge of genocide by Saddam against Iraqis.

Frankly... I dont know why you all dont just come out and say it... you love Buchanan and Paul, so much on this issue.

"Those people get the government they deserve!"

Because THAT is what you really are saying.

 

Spencer,
Just talk with a Vet, every thing you just wrote ("the results speak loudest") is wrong. You write as though you are running for office thereby have something to gain by misrepresenting what's really going on over there. Shake yourself Hillary.