Iran soon?

Quote:

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

You got to be kidding me? Nuclear weapons against Iran? Do you want to turn the Middle East and maybe North Korea on us. Why don't we use the CIA to destroy the plant...we spend enough money on them. Even without the nuclear option...this is still crazy. Where are we going get these troops from? The army is stretched to the limited as it is...and a draft won't happen. This government just makes less and less sense.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

They won't invade Iran, its just too much of a sticky situation. The people won't rise up, and the American and world public will never let it happen. People are furious now that the US can't control Iraq, and it has 1/3 the people.

It's just planning, the US can't and won't act upon it. Congress would never approve it, nor would any other world government go along with it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This looks to me like nothing other than generic strategic planning that has been going on since the invention of warfare. I think the reporter, and the anonymous source, are seriously overinflating what is probably going on, which is just basic hypothetical scenario considerations.
I guarantee you similar things have been looked at in regards to China, Russia, France, and every other even remotely powerful nation in the world.

Ah, sensationalism at its best I see. They must be running out of good stuff to report.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Gee, looks like there'll have to be another terrorist attack on US soil before something like this happens...

Whoops, I'm letting out government sekrits.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Germany has far more to worry about Iran getting nukes than the US does.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I like how my posts always get deleted if you're replying to them, Gumby. This is the second time it happend. If an admin/moderator did this, I'd appreciate if they could contact me. I was just being cynical.

Also, you have to worry if you want to worry. I'm not afraid of nukes. Call me naive, but I just don't buy into this worldwide war on terrorism crap. It's totally exaggerated and blown out of proportion by politicians who like to use their people's fears for their personal agenda.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Please enlighten us on how the fuck attacking Iran is a personal agenda?

Also, I agree with Fjordor, not that anyone is going to read his post and actually listen to it.

FELIPE NO

I wasn't speaking of Iran in particular, but the "war on terrorism", which clearly is an agenda.

Most amazing jew boots

I forgot Bush is the only one who didn't like terrorists.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Stealth

Also, I agree with Fjordor, not that anyone is going to read his post and actually listen to it.

Gee thanks, you give me so much credit. ;_;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

This looks to me like nothing other than generic strategic planning that has been going on since the invention of warfare. I think the reporter, and the anonymous source, are seriously overinflating what is probably going on, which is just basic hypothetical scenario considerations.
I guarantee you similar things have been looked at in regards to China, Russia, France, and every other even remotely powerful nation in the world.

Ah, sensationalism at its best I see. They must be running out of good stuff to report.

True, I'm pretty sure we've all heard the stories/rumors of the US's ability to orchestrate an invasion of any country on earth...Of course, whether thats true or not is a different issue. I agree with you on that though.

Iran is a threat not to the US, but US interests in the Gulf. It having a modernized military capable of acting rapidly and inserting itself into the Gulf region would paralyze global oil markets and the world economy. Iranian missile tests of extremely fast torpedos capable of sinking full warships and long range missiles only add more worry.

The Iranian military is developing into a fairly powerful force and is becoming very self reliant. The US is worried that if it becomes too strong, it will take advantage of the situation and act swiftly and powerfully enough that by the time the US is capable of retaliating, it would be too late. It's the exact same policy the Chinese are employing with Taiwan - be able to strike and destroy so rapidly that a response would be too little too late.

Quote:

Germany has far more to worry about Iran getting nukes than the US does.

The only people with a legitament fear of Iranian nukes are the Gulf states. Iran wouldn't use one on Israel since that basically ensures their own destruction, however the Gulf states don't have such a weapon to retaliate, and the US wouldn't be too keen on doing it for them either.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The only people with a legitament fear of Iranian nukes are the Gulf states. Iran wouldn't use one on Israel since that basically ensures their own destruction, however the Gulf states don't have such a weapon to retaliate, and the US wouldn't be too keen on doing it for them either.

Why would the Gulf states have the most to fear? I was under the impression that Iran's hostile intentions are directed to the Western nations.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Why would the Gulf states have the most to fear? I was under the impression that Iran's hostile intentions are directed to the Western nations.

And they consider Gulf states to be American stooges. Plus, they can't exactly attack US soil.

In general, Gulf states don't get along with Iran for a very simply reason. The Arab world basically has four power poles - Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Each nation has its region of influence. Egypt has some of north Africa, Syria has Lebanon, Saudi Arabia has all the Gulf states and Jordan to an extent, and Iran is a power on its own and a Shia factor.

The Saudi's and the Iranians in particular do not get along well at all, ever since Ayatollah Khomeni came to power. On the surface they appear friendly, but they engage in skirmishes every once in a while and throw insults bashing the other side. They would both relish the chance to see the other regieme non-existent. The thing is, Iran is just too large for the Saudi Army to deal with in an offensive war, and Saudi is too large for Iran to deal with as well. A nuclear weapon however means one side can basically wipe out the major cities and gain a huge advantage. In particular, a strike on Prince Sultan Airbase, the King Khalid Military City, and one of the three major cities would completely cripple the countries ability to defend itself and cause it to keel over to an Iranian attack.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Germany has far more to worry about Iran getting nukes than the US does.

Okay dude umm see that's a pretty amazing statement! I want to tell you why: First of all, it's not like Germany is Iran's direct neighbor, so if you mean that Germany should worry more because it's closer to Iran than the US, then I have to tell you that it probably will take another 100 years until Iran is able to develop weapon systems with a range that could actually cause Germany to start worrying.

Second: Germany used to be ruled by a anti-semitic dictator called Adolf Hitler. That still impresses those guys down there.

And if you really think that Iran (and that's the same with North Korea) would start dropping atomic weapons on other countries, then you're fucking pathetic.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

This may just be my ignorance, but who exactly are the AFP? They claim to be a worldwide news agency (and are the [sole] source of this article), but I've never heard of them. It's entirely likely I've just missed them for a few years, but are they reliable? I usually stick to the AP and the other major networks (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox) myself. With how many people on both sides of the political fence are extremely angry with Bush right now, I doubt that he'd dare use nukes. That's just ASKING for an impeachment right there.

The Washington Post/MSNBC article about the topic, for instance, makes no mention of tactical nukes and suggests that the attack is not imminent.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

This may just be my ignorance, but who exactly are the AFP? They claim to be a worldwide news agency (and are the [sole] source of this article), but I've never heard of them. It's entirely likely I've just missed them for a few years, but are they reliable? I usually stick to the AP and the other major networks (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox) myself. With how many people on both sides of the political fence are extremely angry with Bush right now, I doubt that he'd dare use nukes. That's just ASKING for an impeachment right there.

The Washington Post/MSNBC article about the topic, for instance, makes no mention of tactical nukes and suggests that the attack is not imminent.

According to their website the AFP is :

Quote:

AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism.
Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington, Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of clients in each region.

Found here

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

AFP would likely ring more bells if it were referred to as Agence France-Presse.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Iran is a threat not to the US, but US interests in the Gulf.

Which makes it a threat to the US, dummy. Just because a country can't invade you or attack your home soil doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Which makes it a threat to the US, dummy. Just because a country can't invade you or attack your home soil doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

There are some that don't consider a diminished base of power, and attacking the actual country to be the same kind of threat.

Yeah there would be a significant reduction in the US's economic power (and it would trickle down to other areas) if they lost support in the Gulf. But some don't see that the same as attacking America.

Being deprived of a thing does not (to some people's POV) constitute a threat. And (to some) does not come close to constituting an attack. Of course this would just get back into the debate about whether it's right to kill for money, and that's one that never goes anywhere.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Wanna know what the beautiful irony of this whole situation is? Guess which country is the only one that's ever actually used a weapon of mass destruction on civilians (hint -- it was about 60 years ago)

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Casual_Otaku

Wanna know what the beautiful irony of this whole situation is? Guess which country is the only one that's ever actually used a weapon of mass destruction on civilians (hint -- it was about 60 years ago)

You mean the British bombing holocaust on Dresden in 1944?

I was speaking idiomatically.

lol WMDs doesn't always mean nukes, Casual_Otaku.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Musharraf

You mean the British bombing holocaust on Dresden in 1944?

Not to downplay the incident, but a fuck-tonne of conventional bombs does not meet what is generally considered a 'weapon of mass destruction'.

Originally Posted by Gumby

lol WMDs doesn't always mean nukes, Casual_Otaku.

lol nukes are ok because other WMDs are out there too.

FELIPE NO

I think mass destruction is equally weighted, whether it is done by a single weapon or otherwise. It's not the weapon that's scary - it's the mass destruction.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Well Tactical Nukes for example aren't really WMDs in the normal sense either.

Wikipedia on WMD

Jam it back in, in the dark.