Are we about to attack Iran???

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because the USAF has often used Blakenheath and other UK sites as a base for distant bombing missions, despite the same overflying issues.

Strategic bombing missions in South Central Asia do not face the problem of overflight. B-2's fly exclusively out of Whiteman, AFB in Missouri and B-52s are stationed in Guam and Diego Garcia well within range of any Mid-East mission that might require a less direct route.

Tactical missions out of Europe could face problems of overflight. Bombers are designed to fly long missions, but strike fighters have a max of 12-15 hours before pilot fatigue starts setting in.

 

[SezMe]

I would think they have two chances (none and f-all) of support from the UK and other allies this time, which will make things difficult for the US.

No doubt. But this administration has shown little concern for the level of support it gets from the "coalition of the willing".

 

[Big Les]

Well, I suppose you could say "a young man waits outwith these very doors, having failed to realise that basic physics is outwith the grasp of Dylan OR Jones....."





Isn't "without" as in "without these very walls" antiquated in normal English usage? Whereas "outwith" is pretty much in eveyday use here.

I notice these things sometimes, spending so much time in Manchester and all, but to be honest I'm adopting the attitude that the Sassenachs have to learn how to understand me - not the other way around!

I can safely say that I had never heard the word "outwith" until moving to Edinburgh last summer. "Without" is definitely archaic in everyday use in that context, but "outwith" at least as outdated, if not more so in jolly old Blighty. Not so sure about northern England (although I'm from Teeside originally and never heard it there either).

Just do a Google search on "outwith", or have a look at a dictionary to see what I mean. If it's a surviving word in Scottish English, it doesn't surprise me that it might also be preserved in legal and other official documents (other than those originating in Scotland or written by Scots of course!).

Sorry for the derail! Just a bit of traditional intra-British banter, what.

 

[casebro]

I caught right on 'outwith', whether it was atypo or not.

Anybody want to clue me in on 'Sassenachs' ? Sassing in the night? so sassing discreetly?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because the USAF has often used Blakenheath and other UK sites as a base for distant bombing missions, despite the same overflying issues.

Not the same. Your generalization is off the mark. France blocked the overflight for Operation Dorado Canyon, and they were NATO allies, albeit in the "in but out" category. Spain did not, and IIRC, one of the damaged jets landed at Torrejon. Part of France's objection was their ties to the Muslim world via trade and Algerians, and the Mahgreb expat community in France.

You tend to make my point for me. Why would Georgia, Azerbaijan, or Armenia allow such overfligh? They have to live in that neighborhood! So too does Turkey. Five years ago? Maybe. Currently, Turkey does not look to be eager to incite more problems among the Muslims factions in Turkey by being accomplice to "American Aggression."

Unrepentent Sinner makes an acute observation:

Iran put up with airstrikes and missles from Iraq for 8 years during it's war with Iraq. I don't think us sending in a couple hundred soties of F-14s and F-18s is going to do much more than erode the good will many Iranian citizens still (somehow) have for the U.S.

Besides F-14's not being around anymore, I'd say that is spot on.

What is the utility of sending B-2's, with their "global reach, global power," to strike at Iran? A mission limited in scope to x, y, or z target. To go back to the assertion of Bulgarian or Romanian launch pads for a strike, landing B-2's in Bulgaria or Romania risks giving that game away, big time. Their whole profile is "trying not to be seen."

DR

 

[Azure]

Scott Ritter is the biggest idiot alive.

Why on earth anyone would believe his BS is beyond me.

 

[hgc]

Scott Ritter is the biggest idiot alive.

Why on earth anyone would believe his BS is beyond me.

Because just about everything he predicted about Iraq has come to pass, perhaps. On the other hand, everyone who was absolutely wrong about Iraq inexplicably have their credibility intact.

 

[Azure]

You mean this Scott Ritter?

Quote
I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program


Quote:
The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."


Quote:
and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."


Then after being barred from inspections in Iraq, Ritter decides to take a completely different stand, AFTER he had first said that Iraq had not gotten rid of the WMD. Given the fact that Ritter wasn't allowed back into Iraq...

Quote:
He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998


but still claimed after the ban that Iraq continued to have WMD, tells us that either Scott Ritter is an idiot, or he is flat out lying.

You see it would be pretty hard to say that Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD program, given that you're not allowed to inspect the sites anymore, and until 2000, Ritter wrote books of why Iraq should be disarmed. He even blamed the US for not infiltrating UNSCOM and gathering intelligance in order to help them get a regime change in Iraq.

Quote:
However, he also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998.


But then, in 2002, Ritter suddenly changed his stance. Instead of remembering what he said back in 1998.....

Quote:
"out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." - September 3, 1998.


And completely turned around to say this......

Quote:
But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited…


Quote:
[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.


Directly showing that he himself is a hypocrite.

Given that it would be pretty hard to change your stance since you have resigned from the UN and have no inside knowledge of that WMD program anymore. Yet Ritter still decided to take a different approach. Lying much?

All quotes taken from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

 

[Architect]

Anybody want to clue me in on 'Sassenachs' ? Sassing in the night? so sassing discreetly?

It's Gaelic for "Saxon" and is used to mean people of an English disposition. In Scots it's a mildly demeaning term.

 

[Architect]

It's Gaelic for "Saxon" and is used to mean people of an English disposition. In Scots it's a mildly demeaning term.

ETA: It creates a minor problem when history is being taught in Gaelic, as one has to talk about how the Saxons invaded England but the two words are the same. So there you go.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Because just about everything he predicted about Iraq has come to pass, perhaps. On the other hand, everyone who was absolutely wrong about Iraq inexplicably have their credibility intact.

In his article he mentioned a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran. (If I read it correctly) I find this extremely hard to believe and highly unlikely the United States would use any nuclear force, in this day in age, with out a U.S. target getting hit first. Granted the Bush admin seems very thick headed and "moronic' when playing and implementing war strategies. But a 5 year old could even see the problems from doing this.

 

[hgc]

In his article he mentioned a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran. (If I read it correctly) I find this extremely hard to believe and highly unlikely the United States would use any nuclear force, in this day in age, with out a U.S. target getting hit first. Granted the Bush admin seems very thick headed and "moronic' when playing and implementing war strategies. But a 5 year old could even see the problems from doing this.

I hope you're right. Some of Iran's sites are said to be far enough below ground that they're impervious to conventional bombs. I don't know if this is truly the case, but if Cheney wants to stop Iran from going nuke, and he's not used to being denied...

 

[Azure]

Again, Ritter is full of it.

I don't see how you can believe someone who changes their stance so quickly, and without reason. One year Saddam had WMD and it was the US' fault for not making him get rid of them, and the next year he doesn't have them?

Rrrright.

 

[Polaris]

I think UnrepentantSinner has cited an important strategic factor. By my reading, young Iranians are not sympathetic to the ruling mullahs and have an attraction to western culture.

If so, then our strategic moves should be to support the upcoming generation...or at least not to alienate them...which an attack would surely do.

This is certainly true. 2/3 of Iranians are under 30. And if there's one group more patriotic than Americans it's Iranians. The Mullahs know this, and are counting on the US blowing this popular goodwill. From the Iranians' point of view, the Mullahs are a national nightmare, but they're their national nightmare, and they'll fight anybody who invades, even if it's to oust their oppressors. It's a bit maddening, because the Iranians I've talked to do nothing but bitch about how bad everything is, don't seem to want to do anything about it, and say they'll violently oppose any outside attempts to change it.

The Mullahs want a Bomb so that they will have no outside threats and can use this misguided patriotism to back them. Then they can do whatever they want. They play nuclear brinkmanship because, frankly, they don't give a damn about the Iranians themselves.

 

[Merko]

It's a bit maddening, because the Iranians I've talked to do nothing but bitch about how bad everything is, don't seem to want to do anything about it, and say they'll violently oppose any outside attempts to change it.

Well, they don't really have a good experience of outside forces coming in to 'help' them. So their priority would be something like:
1. Get rid of those foreign imperialists.
2. Get rid of those domestic oppressors.

Granted, there has not been that much progress with 2) in recent years, but most Iranians probably share your analysis that any foreign intervention wouldn't be for the sake of Iranians anyway. And as bad as the Iranian regime is, there's no real reason to believe that chaos would lead to something better.


Regarding nukes, I do believe that Bush and Cheney have advocated it, and would be willing to use it. However, I do have good hopes that most or even all of the top ranking military is opposed to this, and given the situation in Congress and the House, this will hopefully be enough to prevent it from happening. I'm actually not sure if the threat of impeachment is enough to restrain Bush, he seems to believe he has this Mission from God, and he'd probably think that history would only give him extra credits if he spent some jailtime for doing what needed to be done.

At this point, I don't think even Israel would support a first strike against Iran. They might change their mind in a year or so though, but I don't see a coalition becoming much larger than that. Not that this would stop Bush though. I don't think anything except Congress/House can.

 

[Hawkeye]

Oy Vey, reading this thread is depressing.

 

[webfusion]

merko thinks:

At this point, I don't think even Israel would support a first strike against Iran.

The man in charge of Strategic Threats towards Israel is Avigdor Lieberman.
He is very much convinced that sending an IAF strike is the way to go.

IDF Brigadier General Oded Tira is also very much in favor of doing so.

PM Ehud Olmert just gave a major speech indicating that he supports action against Iran's nuclear program.

Let me ask you, merko, do you know of any Israeli who has come out publicly and said that an air strike against Iranian nuclear centrifuges is not an option?

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is certainly true. 2/3 of Iranians are under 30. And if there's one group more patriotic than Americans it's Iranians. The Mullahs know this, and are counting on the US blowing this popular goodwill. From the Iranians' point of view, the Mullahs are a national nightmare, but they're their national nightmare, and they'll fight anybody who invades, even if it's to oust their oppressors. It's a bit maddening, because the Iranians I've talked to do nothing but bitch about how bad everything is, don't seem to want to do anything about it, and say they'll violently oppose any outside attempts to change it.

Consider the position of an Iraqi Sunni who was not an insider Ba'athist.

"Saddam may be a jerk, but he's our jerk."

Consider a Libertarian who does not care for GW Bush.

"Bush may be an idiot, but he's our idiot, America's idiot, to deal with. You foreigners handle your problems, we'll handle ours."

It would seem rational for the folk of Iran to feel similarly.

DR

 

[Polaris]

Consider the position of an Iraqi Sunni who was not an insider Ba'athist.

"Saddam may be a jerk, but he's our jerk."

Consider a Libertarian who does not care for GW Bush.

"Bush may be an idiot, but he's our idiot, America's idiot, to deal with. You foreigners handle your problems, we'll handle ours."

It would seem rational for the folk of Iran to feel similarly.

DR

I don't think Americans are quite as oppressed as Iraqis and Iranians.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think Americans are quite as oppressed as Iraqis and Iranians.

The point wasn't oppression, the point is parochialism or chauvinism.

"It's a family problem, we keep it in our family. You outsiders piss off."

DR