Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 What the hell are we waiting for? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert. Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”. President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”. Related Links Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power. Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary. Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down. Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”. Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months ? “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”. It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 They are waiting to build any kind of support for the attack. Unfortunately, your blind, heartless support is not enough. Also, we are not talking about over 50% of public support. They are just looking for like 30-40%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 They are waiting to build any kind of support for the attack.Unfortunately, your blind, heartless support is not enough. Also, we are not talking about over 50% of public support. They are just looking for like 30-40%. I wouldn't care if they only had 2%. Iran is building nuklur weapons and supplying the *******s in Iraq They need an asswhipping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 i cant see them doing this while Bush is in office. More credible to the world if they wait till the next day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 i cant see them doing this while Bush is in office.More credible to the world if they wait till the next day... Honestly, what does he have to lose, his popularity? It's something that needs to be done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Honestly, what does he have to lose, his popularity? It's something that needs to be done Why do you hate America? War w/ Iran would:-cause Pres. Mahmoud to maybe use the nukes if he DOES have them (and I think he would; unlike Saddam, Mahmoud would welcome death) -cause the people to rally behind the leadership (think how America rallied behind Bush after 9-11) -stretch our forces even thinner Yeah, great idea :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 Why do you hate America? War w/ Iran would:-cause Pres. Mahmoud to maybe use the nukes if he DOES have them (and I think he would; unlike Saddam, Mahmoud would welcome death) -cause the people to rally behind the leadership (think how America rallied behind Bush after 9-11) -stretch our forces even thinner Yeah, great idea :doh: He doesn't have nukes...........yet They can rally all they want, it won't do them any good The Air Force can take care of Iran in about..............three days Fortunately we're smart enough to already have the forces pre-postioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I'm with ya' sarge. Iran Is at war with us in Iraq, so why not go downtown. Our Islamic enemies count on the fact that we're a western nation and expected to act in a certain manner, play by "the rules" while they are expected not too. Going all out, like plan suggests, would turn that type of thinking upside down. And why not cut off the supply to the insurgents from the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, and to rally the population behind a government which is currently near collapse, virtually assuring their continuing in control for at least the next decade, according to a national security expert. (I think that's my first-ever "fixed that for you" post, but I haven't been keeping score.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, and to rally the population behind a government which is currently near collapse, virtually assuring their continuing in control for at least the next decade, according to a national security expert.(I think that's my first-ever "fixed that for you" post, but I haven't been keeping score.) Dictators generally don't collapse. That's why they are dictators. ANd there is just as good a chance that this might give the vaunted "youth movement" that we keep hearing so much about a chance to do the job of getting rid of the mullahs for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Dictators generally don't collapse. That's why they are dictators. ANd there is just as good a chance that this might give the vaunted "youth movement" that we keep hearing so much about a chance to do the job of getting rid of the mullahs for us They will like the rest of the Iranian population rally around the exisiting government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Dictators generally don't collapse. That's why they are dictators. ANd there is just as good a chance that this might give the vaunted "youth movement" that we keep hearing so much about a chance to do the job of getting rid of the mullahs for us Exactly,the Mullahs eliminate any real threat to their power(including other mullahs). For a change in direction the cost must be high enough to make them change course...or attack and leave them in charge ,but toothless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Gas em up...file the flight plans... enter the GPS coordinates into the JDAMS.... let em fly. Whether people want to believe it or not, and most on the Left refuse to, we're at war with Iran already. In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, and elsewhere. They're killing our effing soldiers in Iraq right now..... how on earth can Americans in this country stand for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I was talking to a 20 year old civil engineering student, who lives in Iran the other day. I was asking him, what he thought of our war and the US labeling the IRG "terrorists". He told me, that although we had no right to invade Iraq, it will help the ME, immensly. He also said the IRG is terrorists and if America attacked them, most Iranians would be glad. He called his gov't dictators and wished us to remove them from power. It kind of threw me for a loop, these comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt [Redskins Fan] Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Mission Accomplished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Also, I'm not sure to look at this as "what we should have done in the first place" in Iraq or if it's exactly how we started in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 It kind of threw me for a loop, these comments. It was a shock to you that the people running that country are *******s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 It was a shock to you that the people running that country are *******s?No, I think the entire world is aware of that. What threw me for a loop was that college students would support a US invasion into thier country. Maybe it's because, even when things seem bad to me here, I would still never allow a forign nation to invade us, even if for the better. As a nieve American, it opened my eyes a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 No, I think the entire world is aware of that. What threw me for a loop was that college students would support a US invasion into thier country. Maybe it's because, even when things seem bad to me here, I would still never allow a forign nation to invade us, even if for the better. As a nieve American, it opened my eyes a bit. You might also be surprised that a majority of Europeans support military action against Iran...funny world isn't it. Of course I don't see them volunteering to lead said attack. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 2, 2007 Author Share Posted September 2, 2007 You might also be surprised that a majority of Europeans support military action against Iran...funny world isn't it.Of course I don't see them volunteering to lead said attack. :laugh: Yeah, don't worry, America will do it, then we can scream and yell and protest and whine about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Yeah, don't worry, America will do it, then we can scream and yell and protest and whine about it Y'know, Sarge, it'd be OK with most of us if you just skipped the whole "scream and yell and protest and whine" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englands Team Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Our troops in BAsra are in the thick of this now. The Iranians are causing problems. I am quite sure that we have troops on the ground in Iran already intercepting the arms suppliers. I am sure that evidence will start to be released on the amount of our troops killed due to their actions and a media campaign will start. Then will come the bombing. Don't know if it will help the Uk and the US in the long term but hopefully it will allow us time to withdraw from Iraq and dismantle their nuclear capability at the same time. My worry. The Russians, they seem to be sabre rattling again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceNASeem Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Why stop there? After Iran, lets go after Syria since all of Iraqs NUKES were shipped there overnight in giant unmarked trucks. (sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Why stop there? After Iran, lets go after Syria since all of Iraqs NUKES were shipped there overnight in giant unmarked trucks. (sarcasm) In all candor, I don't think that is such a bad idea. (and i don't think it's farfetched to expect they shipped whatever weapons may have been there to Syria, especially when one of the former generals of the Iraqi air force says they did just that in his book. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572535/posts and http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1591454042 you can check it out. Let's face it. Syria has been instigating things for decades right along with Iran even if it isn't true that they accepted smuggled weapons. It's amazing they have not been held more accountable anyway. It is my hope that Iran can be dealt with peacefully. I have faith in their people for some reason, and I hope I'm not just pipe dreaming. Koolblue- I find your friend's thoughts very interesting as well. I wonder how typical is he of the average joe over there? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceNASeem Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Books are made to sell copies and make money, some isolated general stating that Iraq sent chemical and biological weapons(not NUKES) to Syria is irrelevant. Iraq and Syria did not even have diplomatic relations until the US disposed of Hussein. Iraq and Syria were at odds for YEARS before the removal of Hussein. Believing that Iraq sent its NUKES to Syria shows an immense lack of knowledge of the politics of the region. The whole story of Iraq shipping weapons to Syria was just one of the many lies peddled by this administration in order to accomplish its goals. On a side note, the reason Iran MAY be pursuing a nuclear program (A fatwa AGAINST nuclear weapons has been issued by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei) is to DETER the United States from attacking. The primary purpose of a nuclear arsenal by ALL countries which possess one is DETERRENCE. Iran has good reason to fear a hostile US, it is sorrounded by US forces (in Afghanistan & Iraq) and it was mentioned in the infamous "axis of evil" state of the union address. If you and two other people were mentioned by somebody as being evil, and then that somebody attacked one of the other two people and sorrounded you on both sides, what would you think and do? In all candor, I don't think that is such a bad idea. (and i don't think it's farfetched to expect they shipped whatever weapons may have been there to Syria, especially when one of the former generals of the Iraqi air force says they did just that in his book. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1572535/postsand http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1591454042 you can check it out. Let's face it. Syria has been instigating things for decades right along with Iran even if it isn't true that they accepted smuggled weapons. It's amazing they have not been held more accountable anyway. It is my hope that Iran can be dealt with peacefully. I have faith in their people for some reason, and I hope I'm not just pipe dreaming. Koolblue- I find your friend's thoughts very interesting as well. I wonder how typical is he of the average joe over there? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.